Jump to content


Questions to the developers


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

CorvusCorvax #101 Posted 25 September 2018 - 04:51 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1486 battles
  • 1,539
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 24 September 2018 - 11:18 PM, said:

 

 

When you think about it, this annoying heavy bot behavior would be considered unusual if it was a player.  No one, other than the occasional headhunter, will make a career in a battle of shooting only your bomber.  Means a very low score for them even if they get you.

 

Sometimes, if I am in a HF and find myself the anti-bomber player, it will FEEL like I am headhunting.  The reality is that there are not many red bombers to go after, and even with the occasional red HF that will come up to play, I might spend the whole battle preventing human and bot bomber pilots from flipping caps, and that looks (and feels) like headhunting.

 

I find it odd that the developers would code that sort of behavior into HF bots.  They can be more productive doing BnZ on ADA.



blindfoId #102 Posted 26 September 2018 - 02:10 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Administrator
  • 5 battles
  • 389
  • Member since:
    07-19-2018

View PostHANNIBAL_LECTER_1, on 13 September 2018 - 06:04 AM, said:

1- Can you give us an estimated number of technical problems / bugs that have been found since the 2.0 release?

 

The count goes to hundreds. Most of the bugs are eliminated on the stage of testing with the help of our cool team of Supertesters. But, sadly, not all of them. We are really grateful to our caring players who report technical issues and bugs and provide the necessary information.  Not only we implement fixes with major updates but also release small patches to hot-fix some of the issues if possible. Now we are working on the next major update which includes a bunch of annoying bugs' fixes and some interesting changes we announced some time ago. 

 

View PostHANNIBAL_LECTER_1, on 13 September 2018 - 06:04 AM, said:

2- Knowing that the technical issues that the game presents in its current state are so many and have a high impact on the user's gaming experience to the point where the game is unplayable...

    What is the logic behind having this game in the market as "Final Product"?, 

 

We are striving to improve the game and keep on working on it all the time. The game develops and is being developed, changes and improvements come and go. We do not stand still, we try to meet the needs of community. The process is not an easy and quick one, but some of the changes (made due to generous players' feedback) are about to arrive with the next major update. Some of the problems of technical character are resolved in hour or even minutes and implemented on the same day we've received a report, but most of them require careful investigation. We try to fix most of the issues as soon as possible.

View PostHANNIBAL_LECTER_1, on 13 September 2018 - 06:04 AM, said:

3- At some point, was the option of temporarily removing the game from service considered or even roll back to Beta status?

 

No, we never considered any of these options.

 

View PostElectric_samurai, on 13 September 2018 - 06:02 PM, said:

So sick and tired of this

 

Could you please specify your issue? 

 

View PostPerrigrino, on 19 September 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

haven't read the entire thread so not sure if asked:

 

1. Pilot Skills: when will there be an update to reflect recent changes to the game since most skills are from 1.X and,

2. Will there be compensation, since majority of players have their skills setup, for a long time. Once update patch occurs, those skill configurations may likely become outmoded or useless requiring a significant investment, as is already the case. This may likely require an economic hit to the players to reconfigure pilot skills- imagine the reception to that patch update?

 

No changes for Pilot Skills are planned in the next few patches. But your feedback is noted! We consider this idea for future updates.

 

View PostPerrigrino, on 19 September 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

3. In WoWShips, many modes are possible. Why not in WoWP? Same company, same access to technology. WoWS has Random, Co-op, Clan, Ranked battles, and now a new mode. Why can't WoWP have same or similar? Saying it is not possible, is not sufficient. We see what "they" have, and wonder why not here?

 

We are working on feasibility of running several game modes at a time without binding them to tiers or any other modifiers. WoWP and WoWS are developed by different development studios and are different games in their core though share the same game engine. 

 

View PostMadJackChurchil, on 24 September 2018 - 11:26 PM, said:

A question. Are there any plans for changing the requirements for specialist configurations? If there are no plans, can we make you start planning it?

 

The concepts based on the analysis of players' feedback, which are being reviewed and processed at the moment, are as follows:

 

  • Removing the dependence on victory in Specialist missions. It should make the obtaining of Specialist configuration easier and more affordable;
  • Reducing the cost of skipping Specialist configuration missions for tokens if there is actual progress on this mission (the more progress - the lower the cost in the tokens);

 

View PostPerrigrino, on 19 September 2018 - 01:28 PM, said:

 

Blindfold, are you a developer? Curious, since it seems like you are replying to most of the questions, and have yet to see a "developers" response. Not trying to be rude, just trying to understand why the developer(s) have been, for the most part, absent from these forums?

 

I am not. I am a Community Manager. If I can answer questions myself (updates dates, upcoming aircraft models and so on) I do answer. But when questions require answers of developers (mechanics, plans, position on some points) I contact the Devs and ask them your questions. By the way, I've already answered similar question:

 

View PostblindfoId, on 02 August 2018 - 03:21 PM, said:

As far as I know, some of them do [read the forums], some of them don't. Still it is not their first priority. The ones who read the forums, collect and deliver the customers' desires/complaints/needs are CMs. That is the part of their work.



MadJackChurchil #103 Posted 26 September 2018 - 08:22 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1278 battles
  • 74
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

Thank you for your reply, blindfold.

 

I will just clarify my problem. With the new bot behaviour its extremely hard to kill bots with bomber turrets (at least for weak-turreted german bombers). Can you please change the requirement for turret kills for bombers to something that can be actually done?



HANNIBAL_LECTER_1 #104 Posted 27 September 2018 - 12:55 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3719 battles
  • 179
  • [FALCO] FALCO
  • Member since:
    09-24-2016
Thanks for the answers!

megistus #105 Posted 27 September 2018 - 11:59 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 2912 battles
  • 2
  • [524] 524
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013
What's the deal with the EXTRA LONG wait time, ( Black Screen ) when entering the game ??????????????

wylleEcoyote #106 Posted 01 October 2018 - 02:37 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1747 battles
  • 120
  • [ALAS] ALAS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
wait a second

View PostXr901, on 11 September 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

2. Does "engine thrust" have an effect on climb rate and the degradation of performance at altitude? Improved mixture control and High-octane additive for example, have an impact on the climb rate stat, and improve engine thrust, but the engine guru skills which have a corresponding effect on "engine thrust" do not have the same visible effect on climb in the hanger. I am also interested in whether the uprated engine has any effect on these aspects of the flight model (although it certainly seems to not affect climb, based on the hangar stats). 

 

All listed points certainly do effect climb rate.


So while poking about the Hanger i was looking at how the various changes made by equipment and consumables to the hard stats for the planes is represented.
And i noticed a certain peculiarity.
The tool tip for Improved Mixture Control states that it provides  +3% Engine Thrust  "significantly improving aircraft acceleration"
But when i check the airspeed rating ...Effects shows 3 values. Acceleration With Boost Activated 5%, Acceleration Without Boost 5%, and Cruise Speed 2%.

Which one is the correct value?

Edited by wylleEcoyote, 01 October 2018 - 03:04 AM.


LMG #107 Posted 07 October 2018 - 07:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2060 battles
  • 1,574
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Will there be changes to Bomber Escort after it's not-as-welcomed introduction? If so, what could we expect?
This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

HANNIBAL_LECTER_1 #108 Posted 08 October 2018 - 06:08 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3719 battles
  • 179
  • [FALCO] FALCO
  • Member since:
    09-24-2016
Could you incorporate an option in the training room that allows you to choose between different game modes? Attrition-Conquest-Invasion-Escort

ComradeZ #109 Posted 12 October 2018 - 06:06 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3310 battles
  • 220
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

You people mentioned that there are different development studios for each WG owned property.  Who or what is responsible for WoWp? Does this mystery studio have a name?

 



trikke #110 Posted 12 October 2018 - 10:45 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2276 battles
  • 1,836
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

it's been available for a long time now, but can we all talk about how that pilot skill marksman two with auto-aim is way too obviously obvious? 

 

could it be that this one tiny auto-aim boost may have contributed to the decision to quit wowp, by thousands of new pilots over the years?     

 

it's ridiculously easy to see, while in battle

 

could we consider modifying it by removing the auto-aim portion and replacing it with an equally valuable non-hacky-looking benefit?

 

or keep it, but somehow code it to look less obviously cheaty?


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

ComradeZ #111 Posted 13 October 2018 - 11:37 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3310 battles
  • 220
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

I'll exploit the living crapout of it if it means gaining an edge over unfair mission orders (Can only win mission if you pay money.).

 

Makes me wonder: Who has more sway over game design when it comes to harvesting player money? Financing or Development?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users