Jump to content


Two Mode Game Suggestion....(Again)


  • Please log in to reply
439 replies to this topic

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #61 Posted 02 June 2018 - 04:00 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 782 battles
  • 3,525
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View Postsoshootmenow, on 01 June 2018 - 11:53 AM, said:

 

I have been thinking about what you stated above. It seems to me that bringing back all of the OP's with a product that they desire as well as having the OPTION to be able to play 2.0 should they so choose would most certainly bring in more revenue. Especially if you consider that (in my original post statement) they make the 1.9 level a Premium or Pay only option in order to advance to it after a certain number of battles in 2.0 (for the new players....not the OP's that have already put in the time).

Just don't 'half-a*s' it. If they put up a sort-of 1.9 version with the pathetic flight characteristics/UI/Sound effects/etc... of the 2.0 mode it is not going to bring back the OP's or retain anyone who wants a more advanced level. Which this game currently lacks. Even WarThunder has a full realism mode I believe but they use a different premise/model so what they do wont work here.

This way it would also expand both the actual customer base as well as the potential customer base. It simply would be a larger pool of both actual and potentially paying customers.

It would also probably start to give the game some real traction and more options for advertisement and marketing. People would start to see a considerable increase in the number of human players given the amount of time the OP's put in on the game over a daily/weekly/monthly basis. (I mean really.....who wants yet more bots!!??).

WoWP would not longer have to hide their player stats. Instead they would be able to use that as a promotional tool.

They could even start their own YouTube series of 'Best Battles' published weekly with the most entertaining battles with a large number of human players.

Sheesh!.....I am not even in the gaming business and I can come up with this stuff!

WG....You have had nearly three quarters and it is not going all that well. Give us what we want and have been repeatedly asking for. We quite apparently are all willing to work with you on this.

How about you start working WITH US!!??.

What you have now is not working to the level you thought it would.

C'mon Man!

 

yes, but rico will keep pestering you about not wanting to hear your opinion...

he'll use the "vision" argument on you...

and you know, nobody has ever beat the hammer debate, hehe

.

.

. ok,

 I agree, understanding customer feedback is essential for running a prosperous business...

notice, I didn't say following customer advice but being contrary to sound advice is stupid

this game is in an important directional decision phase whether they know/admit it or not...

my next question to my devs/programmers would be:

 

"how fast can we put together this two game system in place...

give me some times and numbers"

 

 

 

 


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.


CorvusCorvax #62 Posted 02 June 2018 - 04:09 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1963 battles
  • 1,841
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

[shrug]

 

Opinions are interesting, but have little value, obviously.  Whether or not *I* care about a particular opinion is equally meaningless.  As long as the process is opaque, and reasoning opaque, the only thing that can be done is speculation.

 

WG has made it pretty clear (as clear as they can be, which ain't very) that they are sticking with the current plan, and not going back to the old one.  Or maybe they will someday.  Or pull the plug on the whole thing, and go back in time to 2011, before WoWP.

 

My apologies for speculating.  Please carry on beating heads on walls.



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #63 Posted 02 June 2018 - 04:29 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 782 battles
  • 3,525
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 01 June 2018 - 11:09 PM, said:

[shrug]

 

Opinions are interesting, but have little value, obviously.  Whether or not *I* care about a particular opinion is equally meaningless.  As long as the process is opaque, and reasoning opaque, the only thing that can be done is speculation.

 

WG has made it pretty clear (as clear as they can be, which ain't very) that they are sticking with the current plan, and not going back to the old one.  Or maybe they will someday.  Or pull the plug on the whole thing, and go back in time to 2011, before WoWP.

 

My apologies for speculating.  Please carry on beating heads on walls.

 

if you say so rico...

not beating heads here but... not believing words of unsure people (WG mouthpieces)...

and, what ever is really sure?

I've been around in this great bug/big world long enough that people are strange

one thing I can say for sure is,

I dunno

 

edit: what I posted previously wasn't an opinion, it was advice... hehe

 


Edited by Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, 02 June 2018 - 04:31 AM.

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.


soshootmenow #64 Posted 02 June 2018 - 05:47 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 153
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 02 June 2018 - 04:09 AM, said:

[shrug]

 

Opinions are interesting, but have little value, obviously.  Whether or not *I* care about a particular opinion is equally meaningless.  As long as the process is opaque, and reasoning opaque, the only thing that can be done is speculation.

 

WG has made it pretty clear (as clear as they can be, which ain't very) that they are sticking with the current plan, and not going back to the old one.  Or maybe they will someday.  Or pull the plug on the whole thing, and go back in time to 2011, before WoWP.

 

My apologies for speculating.  Please carry on beating heads on walls.

 

Hey Corvus.....I hear what you are saying. My point being is this thread and general idea is NOT about 'following along' with the stated dictum. It is plainly obvious that it did not work as WoWP/WG intended. It has not 'fixed all of the games problems in one shot'.

My point here, and for all of those that are obviously interested, is to CHANGE the current status quo regardless of the advertised mission statements. What they have tried has been given an ample and more than fair amount of time for gestation and development. The stated and intended results have simply NOT manifested themselves anywhere near the levels of participation expected or required. Mission statements and stonewalling have been done oh so many, very many, before. I have noted that CAN and WILL change. My intent here is to make these necessary changes before the current situation finds itself BEYOND redemption or resolution. WoWP's prior repeated method of ignoring the criticisms and shoving any/all changes down everyone's throat has obviously gone too far and one time too many in this case.

NO ONE IS BUYING IN TO THIS ONE....I mean wth!!???.......It has gone through nearly three quarters and they basically don't have SQUAT for improvements in participation to show for it!!!

In simple terms.....It...did....not.....WORK. That is all. I am not making a criticism here.....I am giving a critique. And I am right. That is just how it is.

I am also offering a solution that so many really seem to want and trying to present/develop it into a viable alternative for ALL of the parties involved.

This was suggested by a vast number of community players before the 2.0 cutover.

As I have said so many times before.....

WG has tried everything else EXCEPT what everyone asked for.

I mean really.....what is going on over there. This is looking so much more like a pathetic childish ego wannabe personal issue instead of trying to work with all of the parties involved for a real and satisfactory resolution.

None of the management or developers have even bothered to comment or propose something on this or any other thread regarding this subject for months on end! Stonewalling and burying your head in the sand is most certainly not showing a proper response or desire to address the well stated concerns of the parties on this and so many other threads. Flat out disregarding and ignoring YOUR OWN polling results is another example of this sort of low-class and failed governing behavior.

I mean seriously. wth.  Are we dealing with a bunch of stubborn, obstinate, petulant, spoiled 10 year old girls or WHAT!!!???

Geezus WG......Grow the F*CK UP and at least RENT some balls and brains and show some effort here.

I am trying to help ALL of the interested parties involved with honest analysis as well as additional carefully considered and viable proposals/solutions.

Not just complaints or childish whining.

And I would hope that is the desire and intent of all of observers and participants here.

For those that have made the effort or at least expressed that intent, I sincerely thank you all, very much.

For those that have not.....may I please direct your attention to ALL of the above commentary from so very many on this and dozens of other threads.

Thankyou.



soshootmenow #65 Posted 06 June 2018 - 07:52 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 153
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

   In response to several questions posted here regarding the viability of a two mode game proposal I found a thread from Mozasaur. He did an admittedly non-scientific and small sample size test for the number of players on a Friday night for both the EU and RU servers since WoWP has hidden the player numbers since the 2.0 cutover. Still, it is possible to draw some trends/information/conclusions thanks to his tests.

His thread is titled: A Quick Peek at the EU/RU Servers, located in the General Gameplay Discussion board. Please check there for the replies and further information in his thread.

I did a copy paste below of his informative tests and I thank him for his original idea and efforts. (I would quote him but not sure how to quote from one thread to another....or if that is even possible).


 

Hi there!
With all the talk about player numbers here on the NA server these days, I thought I'd do a little experiment.
Using a couple of my numerous alt accounts, I played a couple hours each on the EU and RU servers this morning, just to see what the numbers were there. Keep in mind this would be time-adjusted to early evening in London/Moscow time, and on an Event weekend Friday night, so take that into consideration.  I played five games in each Tier bracket on each server, 30 total games, just to get a taste.  For your boredom, I have made a chart!
 
EU Server...
5 T1 games in an Ar-65, humans in each game: 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 3v3, 3v3.
5 T5 games in a Bf-109E-3, humans in each game: 3v3, 1v1, 2v2, 6v6, 4v4.
5 T8 games in an Me-209A, humans in each game: 3v3, 3v3, 2v2, 2v2, 2v2.
RU Server...
5 T1 games in an I-5, humans in each game: 2v2, 1v1, 4v4, 2v2, 4v4.
5 T5 games in a MiG-3, humans in each game: 5v5, 4v4, 6v6, 5v5, 3v3.
5 T8 games in an La-9, humans in each game: 5v5, 5v5, 3v3, 2v2, 4v4.
 
Conclusion?  Wow, much to my surprise both the EU and RU servers' numbers are just about what NA's are, on a Friday night even.  Admittedly a VERY limited sample size, but still, don't know what to think about that one.  I have noted several times in the past on these forums how in 1.9 I'd be getting 10v10s a dozen times a night on the RU server, and the EU games were regularly busy, but that was a whole different game.  I'm not sure what this means, would more players mean they are spread out more and thus have fewer in particular battles?  Someone smarter than me surely can answer that.
 
Also, if someone else who has alts on other servers (I know you do...), maybe double check my figures with a test of your own?  I'd be interested to know if my experience today was normal or an outlier.
Cheers!


TinMan5700 #66 Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:05 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 1666 battles
  • 6
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    04-13-2016

I agree 100%!!  I can not stand this version,  I hate killing the same players 6 times and getting the highest score only to lose the battle to someone with half the points.  And don't give me that its all about capturing territory crap...why would you make an aviation game about capturing ground bases.  The action takes place in the sky for Gods sake!!  I used to play everyday...I played today after taking 2 weeks off I was so frustrated...I am already frustrated again.  GO BACK to an improved version one...I don't care if you offer an arcade version or not...but I am very close to being done for good!!!

 



trikke #67 Posted 08 June 2018 - 06:30 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2547 battles
  • 2,113
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostTinMan5700, on 07 June 2018 - 03:05 PM, said:

.  And don't give me that its all about capturing territory crap...why would you make an aviation game about capturing ground bases.  The action takes place in the sky for Gods sake!! 

 

hmmm...  that is a really good point, but GA and bombers will need something to do, so...


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

CorvusCorvax #68 Posted 08 June 2018 - 07:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1963 battles
  • 1,841
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostTinMan5700, on 07 June 2018 - 07:05 PM, said:

 And don't give me that its all about capturing territory crap...why would you make an aviation game about capturing ground bases.  The action takes place in the sky for Gods sake!! 

 

I think the 8th Air Force in Europe some 70 years back would completely disagree with you.  And those poor guys in Bastogne, I'm pretty sure that air-to-ground lifted their spirits a bit.  And the current U.S. Army aviation folks are shooting at what, again?

 

Air-to-air combat is only a very small part of the larger combat aviation picture.  Usually, air to air is about either protecting air-to-ground assets, or attacking air-to-ground assets.  Those escort fighters weren't there to mix it up with German fighters, but to keep them from blowing up bombers.  Spitfires and Hurricanes weren't in the sky to shoot down Bf-109s, but to knock down Ju-87s and He-111s.  Likewise, the Bf-109s were there to cover the bombers, not shoot down fighters.  All those guys on the Eastern front who shot down all those planes weren't shooting down fighters, they were shooting down GAA.

 

Yes, in 1.x it was all about air-to-air with a little air-to-ground mixed in.  Now, the focus is more on capturing territory.  Sort of like real life.



LMG #69 Posted 08 June 2018 - 07:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2356 battles
  • 1,689
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posttrikke, on 08 June 2018 - 01:30 PM, said:

hmmm...  that is a really good point, but GA and bombers will need something to do, so...

 

I think I mentioned that a while back; for 1.9 to truly shine we can't have GAAs or bombers. Hell, at the time we literally could not have bombers at all, which is why we ended up with the anti-tank stuka instead of the divebomber.


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

CorvusCorvax #70 Posted 08 June 2018 - 07:24 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1963 battles
  • 1,841
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostLMG, on 08 June 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

 

I think I mentioned that a while back; for 1.9 to truly shine we can't have GAAs or bombers. Hell, at the time we literally could not have bombers at all, which is why we ended up with the anti-tank stuka instead of the divebomber.

 

This one of the reasons I think a return to some form of 1.x is not going to happen.  The focus of the game changed, and the pure air-to-air aspect of 1.x has been abandoned.  The idea of some fighters-only events, with no respawns, might be interesting.  No bombers, no GAA, no fix-it airfields, no capture, no ADA.  Just a straight-up furball.  The person that wins that event gets a nine-skill French pilot.  :)

 

Anyone who wants to GAA or bomber during those events could keep on doing that.  Except, they would be playing against bots.  And make this event open to all tiers.  Let the new guys in on the fun.



mnbv_fockewulfe #71 Posted 08 June 2018 - 09:10 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 256 battles
  • 3,121
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostLMG, on 08 June 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

 

I think I mentioned that a while back; for 1.9 to truly shine we can't have GAAs or bombers. Hell, at the time we literally could not have bombers at all, which is why we ended up with the anti-tank stuka instead of the divebomber.

 

dityboycom and Porkins Jr. would disagree with you.

In a pure gameplay sense, the superiority system made GAA very important.

If you didn't devote time at the start of the match to eliminate a competent GAA player, you had to run the risk of losing the match later even if you killed all the bots.

Going for the GAA early ment you sacrificed altitude at the start of the match and risked losing later.

This garbage saying we couldn't have Bombers in 1.9 is well, garbage. Conquest mode would've worked just as well using the 1.9 flight model, gun mechanics, and UI.

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 08 June 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

 

This one of the reasons I think a return to some form of 1.x is not going to happen.  The focus of the game changed, and the pure air-to-air aspect of 1.x has been abandoned.  The idea of some fighters-only events, with no respawns, might be interesting.  No bombers, no GAA, no fix-it airfields, no capture, no ADA.  Just a straight-up furball.  The person that wins that event gets a nine-skill French pilot.  :)

 

Anyone who wants to GAA or bomber during those events could keep on doing that.  Except, they would be playing against bots.  And make this event open to all tiers.  Let the new guys in on the fun.

 

Conquest mode is a failure to understand the distinction between the tactical air power and the strategic air power. The tactical is the elimination of soldiers and vehicle assets on the front lines. Strategic is the destruction of the enemy's ability to fight be the elimination of his production, transportation, and morale.

Conquest tries to have its cake and eat it too. Bombers eliminate strategic points, but only on a tactical level. The buildings respawn just as soon as the points change sides and no progress is made towards a larger effort.

The sectors themselves are just a mechanic to force a dev desired density of fighting to make things feel more fun, at the same time serving as a layer of "depth" for those that want to win.


 

Heck, in 1.7 I would've welcomed a capture the flag mode, in addition to standard battles. A gamemode that would've taken advantage of the game's arcade nature without sacrificing its simulator one. (shamelessly parroting dity here)

What the game now isn't WWII aerial combat. There is very little anymore that makes the game unique from other arcade flight games out there. And how many of those are still being played?



 

"The Story of World of Warplanes: A Postmortem"


 

 

DISCLAIMER: The write up is part fact, part conjecture on my part of the events leading up to where we are now. I would provide sources for my conjectures, but I'm lazy and a single * will notate a conjecture on my part and a double ** will be provided for whole paragraphs of my conjecture.


 

Is the game enjoyable despite? Yes, I'll grant it that. But it isn't a sustainable fun. The devs are admittedly caught in a trap outside of their control. When the decision was made to make the game more arcade, the then current game's production was stalled. Effort put into a new gamemode was probably started two and a half years ago, during 1.6*. By then, it was too late to rollback to 1.4 and the game had already lost a huge majority of it's player base due to ever changing controls, gun mechanics, increasing wait times, bugs that should've been caught in CTs, no promised clan wars or esports, deteriorating dev communication, and the sound changing every patch.


 

The game existed on life support, with the occasional event to spike up the primetime population, along with the occasional new line or premium to get people to pay for the game. The game slowly bled players as the development for 2.0 depended. Old employees were eventually sacked*, and I'm very doubtful if much of the original development team is left programing WOWP*. Radical ideas were shot forth to try and relaunch the game*. The prospect of turning the game into a MOBA was briefly considered. Time began running out when the higher ups realized, that while the game was churning a profit on life support, it wasn't producing an increasing profit*. Something had to be done, because closing the game altogether would cost more money for WG than shutting it down altogether. The devs need a reason for the game's failure. One was found.


 

The 3D environment. The game is too difficult for most players because it has an extra dimension to think about. Changes were made to eliminate the learning curve that was the result of this confusing gameplay mechanic. When you change one thing, you have to change another. The devs needed to make the game more accessible so more people would be able to play. If more people need to play, not all of them are going to be able to grasp the game's complicated nature. If they took what the game had and simplified it, if they added more gimmicky mechanics that could substitute actual skill (Mario kart consumables introduced in 1.9) then more people will play and want to buy premium time and planes and WG would make more money. (** as to the motivations)


 

Small changes were put into the main game to test out these developing features. The changes passed the Russian supertest and player attrition rates stayed the same so all was well. The gamemode neared completion and more of the persha's hand began to be revealed. The first closed test was released last year in March. Small leaks sprinkled forth information of the game's new nature, rightly called by the Russians, "[the new regime]".


 

The long anticipated aspect of bombers had been added to the game. Bombers had been stated as not appearing in the game because they would not have fit into the game's standard deathmatch battle format. However, when ever the decision was made that bombers would be added to the game, the failure of the devs to develop a new gamemode before hand would be focused by the inclusion of this new class of aircraft.


 

Reception of the gamemode was poor. Which is an understatement. A grotesquely huge understatement. They realized they were taking a big risk. Perfect the gamemode now with closed tests, be extremely vague with the plans for the implementation of the new regime, and hope the old population sticks around long enough for a new population to be assimilated. The plan, switch the barely sustaining population for a low threshold en mass new one and rebuild the game from there. The risk? Everyone getting sacked by the higher ups* should persha listen to the community and delay or worse yet discard what they worked on for two years. They took the only choice afforded them and pushed on, unable to perform a full relaunch due to gamebreaking bugs being present and a lack of sustaining content being in place.

What's happened since October is stuff everyone here already knows.


 


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


soshootmenow #72 Posted 08 June 2018 - 09:26 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 153
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 08 June 2018 - 07:24 PM, said:

 

This one of the reasons I think a return to some form of 1.x is not going to happen.  The focus of the game changed, and the pure air-to-air aspect of 1.x has been abandoned.  The idea of some fighters-only events, with no respawns, might be interesting.  No bombers, no GAA, no fix-it airfields, no capture, no ADA.  Just a straight-up furball.  The person that wins that event gets a nine-skill French pilot.  :)

 

Anyone who wants to GAA or bomber during those events could keep on doing that.  Except, they would be playing against bots.  And make this event open to all tiers.  Let the new guys in on the fun.

 

Good points....all of you. But this sounds like it is a little too regimented or in a silo. The ground based component in 1.9 did have a substantial contribution in that you could use GA's to effectively win on points regardless of the air to air outcome. It was not all just one big furball. And I used to specifically go hunting fighters in some of my GA's as it could take hits and dish it right back out if I got a bird or two lined up. And let's be real....GA's could pack a real wallop if I smacked a fighter....just to tell it 'Bad Kitty!!' to make my point.

But what is being discussed in the comments above essentially come down to the category of refinements of gameplay. I am most certainly willing and open to discuss those refinements.

But nothing presented so far has shown any reason or reasons why a user-selectable two mode game would not resolve all of the above questions and main subject premised discussions.

It would provide the PLAYERS with perfectly viable CHOICES as to which mode or playstyle they would like to do at any given time.

People like to have choices. a 'one-size-fits-all' approach seldom works (and has most certainly not worked here) in almost any successful business.

It is PLAINLY obvious given all the comments in so many threads and survey results that there is simply more than one 'camp' of players interested in this game.

I am simply proposing a way to bring them ALL 'back to the table'

I would hope that would be the real goal here regardless of how it was done (in general terms of course).

And I have not heard anyone here or in any of the other threads propose any solution(s) that would realistically achieve that goal like what I am proposing to have a two-mode game.


 


 

Thankyou!



mnbv_fockewulfe #73 Posted 08 June 2018 - 09:31 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 256 battles
  • 3,121
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Let's see if we can get this thread to 15 pages of good discussion and then maybe the devs will listen.:great:

 

 

Oh wait.:(


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


LMG #74 Posted 08 June 2018 - 09:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2356 battles
  • 1,689
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 08 June 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

dityboycom and Porkins Jr. would disagree with you.

In a pure gameplay sense, the superiority system made GAA very important.

If you didn't devote time at the start of the match to eliminate a competent GAA player, you had to run the risk of losing the match later even if you killed all the bots.

Going for the GAA early ment you sacrificed altitude at the start of the match and risked losing later.

This garbage saying we couldn't have Bombers in 1.9 is well, garbage. Conquest mode would've worked just as well using the 1.9 flight model, gun mechanics, and UI.

 

I know how the Superiority system worked back in 1.x; I was there. However, I don't really recall many wanting that system back. What I do recall is constant GAA nerfing and superiority changes that made the whole thing vary from "Unstoppable doomclock ticking down" to "My team died and now superiority's back to cero. Well, crap.", with pretty much no in-between and the best case scenario, killing the whole enemy team, kinda making GAAs irrelevant. What most people miss is the dogfighting, not the ground game. And the reason Bombers could not make it back in 1.x was because ordnance didn't reload back then. Once they ran out of bombs they wouldn't have been of much use, as we didn't even have turret mode to compensate. GAAs were lucky in that their guns were good enough that their ordnance was mostly for assistance. And for good reason too, as bombs were mostly kept for killing fighters, not for actual ground pounding (which is where most of the aircraft kill marks on my IL-2 and IL-2 (t) came from).

 

I'd like some things to return, like the proper UI customization (especially the altitude indicator based off ground level, the strafing camera and the crosshair customization screen), but the whole superiority system was, to be honest, quite a mess. And that's coming from someone that only ever played GAAs back then for the sole purpose of ground pounding. It was all or nothing; you either got superiority overcharged enough to get you the win regardless of the air battle, or you didn't because the enemy team pushed yours back or just killed you at the start of the battle (which often made quite a hole on the GAA's pocket). Oddly enough, the new Invasion mode reminded me a lot about the pain that was 1.x ground pounding, with mostly set paths I had to follow and could not stray from, the possibility of getting knocked out of the match entirely without getting much done at all, and my team getting wiped out quickly, leaving me with multiple sectors to capture and a lot of bloodthirsty fighters following the trail of blown-up buildings towards me


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

mnbv_fockewulfe #75 Posted 08 June 2018 - 10:14 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 256 battles
  • 3,121
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostLMG, on 08 June 2018 - 09:54 PM, said:

 

I know how the Superiority system worked back in 1.x; I was there. However, I don't really recall many wanting that system back. What I do recall is constant GAA nerfing and superiority changes that made the whole thing vary from "Unstoppable doomclock ticking down" to "My team died and now superiority's back to cero. Well, crap.", with pretty much no in-between and the best case scenario, killing the whole enemy team, kinda making GAAs irrelevant. What most people miss is the dogfighting, not the ground game. And the reason Bombers could not make it back in 1.x was because ordnance didn't reload back then. Once they ran out of bombs they wouldn't have been of much use, as we didn't even have turret mode to compensate. GAAs were lucky in that their guns were good enough that their ordnance was mostly for assistance. And for good reason too, as bombs were mostly kept for killing fighters, not for actual ground pounding (which is where most of the aircraft kill marks on my IL-2 and IL-2 (t) came from).

 

I'd like some things to return, like the proper UI customization (especially the altitude indicator based off ground level, the strafing camera and the crosshair customization screen), but the whole superiority system was, to be honest, quite a mess. And that's coming from someone that only ever played GAAs back then for the sole purpose of ground pounding. It was all or nothing; you either got superiority overcharged enough to get you the win regardless of the air battle, or you didn't because the enemy team pushed yours back or just killed you at the start of the battle (which often made quite a hole on the GAA's pocket). Oddly enough, the new Invasion mode reminded me a lot about the pain that was 1.x ground pounding, with mostly set paths I had to follow and could not stray from, the possibility of getting knocked out of the match entirely without getting much done at all, and my team getting wiped out quickly, leaving me with multiple sectors to capture and a lot of bloodthirsty fighters following the trail of blown-up buildings towards me

 

You do realize superiority mechanics changed in 1.8 right? Every time the superiority points were added to the bar, the other team's bar would get pushed back by a certain amount. The more points you have the faster your bar fills up, but a team with fewer points and more resets could still win the battle. It was a quite adaptive system and definitely made GAA relevant.


 

Saying Bombers wouldn't have worked in 1.x because of non-reloading bombs is a 2.0 ideology. Bombers may not have worked in standard battles as they were, but there are plenty of solutions to implementing bombers into the game without reloading bombs. For example, an open world (aka clan wars) or an escort mode or a bug out mechanic.


 

Again, ground pounding was considered the low threshold airplane class of choice. You don't have to worry about altitude and you're shooting at stationary targets.

This doesn't exclude players from being great at winning in GA, nor do I claim that the GA game was perfect.

However, after you left the game almost became IL 2 and 1/2 aka World of Ground Attack Planes, because of the ineffectiveness of cannons and high health of GAA, the low population, and 3v3 IL 20s.


 

The game should base its self on a historical context, and should look for inspiration from that context to create a fun, deep gameplay.


 

edit: follow history until you can't, or you don't have the time to. For example, we start in the air instead of taking off from airfields to save time on entering the battle. On the other hand, there is no pretext for Mario Kart consumables or respawning buildings at all, and they are a thing because of the ideology the devs want to force onto the game.   
 


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 08 June 2018 - 10:17 PM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


LMG #76 Posted 08 June 2018 - 10:23 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2356 battles
  • 1,689
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 08 June 2018 - 05:14 PM, said:

You do realize superiority mechanics changed in 1.8 right? Every time the superiority points were added to the bar, the other team's bar would get pushed back by a certain amount. The more points you have the faster your bar fills up, but a team with fewer points and more resets could still win the battle. It was a quite adaptive system and definitely made GAA relevant.

 

Saying Bombers wouldn't have worked in 1.x because of non-reloading bombs is a 2.0 ideology. Bombers may not have worked in standard battles as they were, but there are plenty of solutions to implementing bombers into the game without reloading bombs. For example, an open world (aka clan wars) or an escort mode or a bug out mechanic.

 

Again, ground pounding was considered the low threshold airplane class of choice. You don't have to worry about altitude and you're shooting at stationary targets.

This doesn't exclude players from being great at winning in GA, nor do I claim that the GA game was perfect.

However, after you left the game almost became IL 2 and 1/2 aka World of Ground Attack Planes, because of the ineffectiveness of cannons and high health of GAA, the low population, and 3v3 IL 20s.

 

The game should base its self on a historical context, and should look for inspiration from that context to create a fun, deep gameplay.

 

I actually never knew about that superiority change. I left the game before the big matchmaking modification that, from what I heard, nuked the population with excesively long queues.

 

At the end of the day, it's up to the devs to decide what they want their game to be, both for good and bad. Let's hope we can get the best parts of 1.x reinstalled back into 2.x, as Attrition is already looking to give the dogfighting population a proper gamemode for them without sacrificing the more active ground battle of 2.x :sceptic:


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

CorvusCorvax #77 Posted 08 June 2018 - 11:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1963 battles
  • 1,841
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostLMG, on 08 June 2018 - 10:23 PM, said:

 

I actually never knew about that superiority change. I left the game before the big matchmaking modification that, from what I heard, nuked the population with excesively long queues.

 

At the end of the day, it's up to the devs to decide what they want their game to be, both for good and bad. Let's hope we can get the best parts of 1.x reinstalled back into 2.x, as Attrition is already looking to give the dogfighting population a proper gamemode for them without sacrificing the more active ground battle of 2.x :sceptic:

 

There is a really simple reason why it won't happen.  It will split the population, and drive numbers down for both modes.  The population that has made it's peace with 2.x might go fight some with the 1x returnees.  But the folks that return will not be as many as the ones who left.  So, you dilute the new game mode, and the old game mode has a smaller population than previously.  Even if you could entice back every single person that left to come back and play in the 1.x game mode, you still have diluted the available human population to play the game.  Some, but not all, of the folks who played 1.x will switch back over.  Lower population in either mode.  Some folks who are new with 2.0 might go and play 1.x mode. Lower population on the 2.x servers.  Lower population means less fun playing, no matter which mode.  Diluting the human population on the servers is not what will make WG money, especially if folks grow bored swatting bots.

 

I have not heard yet the convincing numbers argument for spending resources working on a completely different game mode.  How many actual people will be brought back?  And how much money will they spend?

 

Sure, Microsoft kept supporting Win95 iterations for long after they said they would, but after a while, they just shrugged and moved on - even though there was a huge installed base.  Some diehard Win95 users just had to get over it, or find a new OS.  OK, the analogy is not great.  But my suggested event type might feel like a 1.x in a virtual machine, hmmm?

 



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #78 Posted 09 June 2018 - 12:38 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 782 battles
  • 3,525
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 08 June 2018 - 06:38 PM, said:

 

There is a really simple reason why it won't happen.  It will split the population, and drive numbers down for both modes.  The population that has made it's peace with 2.x might go fight some with the 1x returnees.  But the folks that return will not be as many as the ones who left.  So, you dilute the new game mode, and the old game mode has a smaller population than previously.  Even if you could entice back every single person that left to come back and play in the 1.x game mode, you still have diluted the available human population to play the game.  Some, but not all, of the folks who played 1.x will switch back over.  Lower population in either mode.  Some folks who are new with 2.0 might go and play 1.x mode. Lower population on the 2.x servers.  Lower population means less fun playing, no matter which mode.  Diluting the human population on the servers is not what will make WG money, especially if folks grow bored swatting bots.

... or maybe you are incorrect, maybe

you seem to think there is only one possible path for the future and only you are privy to this

 

I have not heard yet the convincing numbers argument for spending resources working on a completely different game mode.  How many actual people will be brought back?  And how much money will they spend?

yet you spew as facts your convincing argument against all such thoughts that don't follow your argument, ok

 

Sure, Microsoft kept supporting Win95 iterations for long after they said they would, but after a while, they just shrugged and moved on - even though there was a huge installed base.  Some diehard Win95 users just had to get over it, or find a new OS.  OK, the analogy is not great.  But my suggested event type might feel like a 1.x in a virtual machine, hmmm?

hmmm indeed...  comparing apples to androids ... smelling crazy train here

 


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.


mnbv_fockewulfe #79 Posted 09 June 2018 - 12:40 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 256 battles
  • 3,121
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 08 June 2018 - 11:38 PM, said:

 

There is a really simple reason why it won't happen.  It will split the population, and drive numbers down for both modes.  The population that has made it's peace with 2.x might go fight some with the 1x returnees.  But the folks that return will not be as many as the ones who left.  So, you dilute the new game mode, and the old game mode has a smaller population than previously.  Even if you could entice back every single person that left to come back and play in the 1.x game mode, you still have diluted the available human population to play the game.  Some, but not all, of the folks who played 1.x will switch back over.  Lower population in either mode.  Some folks who are new with 2.0 might go and play 1.x mode. Lower population on the 2.x servers.  Lower population means less fun playing, no matter which mode.  Diluting the human population on the servers is not what will make WG money, especially if folks grow bored swatting bots.

 

I have not heard yet the convincing numbers argument for spending resources working on a completely different game mode.  How many actual people will be brought back?  And how much money will they spend?

 

Sure, Microsoft kept supporting Win95 iterations for long after they said they would, but after a while, they just shrugged and moved on - even though there was a huge installed base.  Some diehard Win95 users just had to get over it, or find a new OS.  OK, the analogy is not great.  But my suggested event type might feel like a 1.x in a virtual machine, hmmm?

 

 

Diluting the player base?

What a joke! :D


 

1.4 is brought back on a separate server. The 1.9 population comes back to that game since it nearly all left after 2.0.

The 2.0 population stays on it's server and if it doesn't and switches over to the 1.4 server, the population is still there. If enough people leave the 2.0 server for the 1.4 server that 2.0 becomes unplayable (the game is literally playable with only 50 online), then the population isn't lost but is instead just moved around. You return what you started with and add the population gained from 2.0 and you still have more people playing the game.

Assume 500 vets playing prime time in 1.9 population (a guesstimate 5,000-7,000 players total) plus 500 players prime time 2.0 (4,000-6,000). If a 1.4 server were created, you're adding back the 5,000 players who stopped playing for 2.0. However you're not adding them to the 2.0 gamemode. soshootmenow is suggesting parallel gamemodes. All in all 10,000 people are now playing WOWP and they're free to float between the two modes depending on what events are going on. Throw an event in 2.0 to get some 1.4ers playing and if the players don't like the event (like the last few events *cough*cough*) then they can play 1.4 instead of not playing the game at all.


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 09 June 2018 - 12:41 AM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


CorvusCorvax #80 Posted 09 June 2018 - 12:48 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1963 battles
  • 1,841
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I don't see how your numbers are anything more than just made up. Igf you have hard numbers from somewhere, I'd love to see them.  It's a longshot WG would  ever bring back 1.x in any form, but 1.4???  Get real.

 

Yes, I did understand the parallel nature of his proposal.  Which is why I suggested that both modes would be diluted.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users