Jump to content


Over Powered Premium Planes?

OP Unfair Premium Whiners

  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

trikke #61 Posted 09 August 2018 - 12:45 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2038 battles
  • 1,429
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 07 August 2018 - 05:44 PM, said:

 

I am trying very hard to see your point, but again, it is like assuming that everyone flying the RB-17 is an advanced or elite player. No. Not everyone who flies an RB-17 is a good pilot/player. The few impact RB-17 players make an impression and then the plane gets labeled as too overpowered. I keep saying this, it is the players, it is their skills and their skill level, with other planes. Picking on RB-17's and pancakes is an excuse. 

 

Prenzlau

 

absolutely this...

 

i'm a flat tire in a RB at low/mid levels, only slightly better at extreme altitude and haven't touched mine in months

 

it's the pilot's skill level that makes the difference at anything lower than max alt 

 

a-26 is different...  anyone can and should futz around in it at treetop level in that mis-classed thing


Edited by trikke, 09 August 2018 - 12:47 PM.

Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

CorvusCorvax #62 Posted 09 August 2018 - 01:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1329 battles
  • 1,249
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostReitousair, on 09 August 2018 - 09:43 AM, said:

 

 

However there is something wrong with the plane it has such absurd potential that it can make matches revolve around it, whether that be active attempts at shutting it down, outcapping it, or just outright dominating matches through the immense capping power it has. Planes shouldn't all be equal of course, however no plane should be far and away superior in their potential compared to their contemporaries

OK, I did read all of that, and agree, up to a point.  But I will offer a rebuttal.  Two, actually.

 

IL-40

 

IL-40P

 

In the hands of a skilled human, these planes can dominate battles.  In fact, if I see a human in one of these aircraft, I have to alter my plans to counter said human.  Should these aircraft also be nerfed because of their potential to dominate?  I pilot an RB-17 on occasion.  I am just starting out with it, and I don't have the low-level thing quite figured out, but I have figured out something important - even with all it's speed, even a mediocre pilot in a decently-fast aircraft can take it down.  Yes, I have seen some VERY good RB-17 pilots that are hard to touch while they are doing their bomber thing.  But at the same time, when I see an IL-40, or an IL-40P, I still have to EXACTLY the same thing I do when I see an RB-17.  I have to change my approach to a battle and try and counter the human player.



SonicPariah #63 Posted 09 August 2018 - 02:13 PM

    Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 416 battles
  • 644
  • [WGATX] WGATX
  • Member since:
    05-22-2016

Watch the aggressive jabs at other players, all.

 

As for the current meta, there will be some major changes coming to bombing in general with the next Update that should help address these issues at least in part.



Prenzlau #64 Posted 09 August 2018 - 02:51 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4780 battles
  • 336
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 August 2018 - 07:03 AM, said:

OK, I did read all of that, and agree, up to a point.  But I will offer a rebuttal.  Two, actually.

 

IL-40

 

IL-40P

 

In the hands of a skilled human, these planes can dominate battles.  In fact, if I see a human in one of these aircraft, I have to alter my plans to counter said human.  Should these aircraft also be nerfed because of their potential to dominate?  I pilot an RB-17 on occasion.  I am just starting out with it, and I don't have the low-level thing quite figured out, but I have figured out something important - even with all it's speed, even a mediocre pilot in a decently-fast aircraft can take it down.  Yes, I have seen some VERY good RB-17 pilots that are hard to touch while they are doing their bomber thing.  But at the same time, when I see an IL-40, or an IL-40P, I still have to EXACTLY the same thing I do when I see an RB-17.  I have to change my approach to a battle and try and counter the human player.

 

    Good points Corvus. I don't have time right now to address Reitousair's mammoth post, but I do appreciate the time and effort spent, and I do appreciate the insights and opinions, even the ones I dispute or don't agree with. 

    In American sports, they often talk about "timed speed" which is when you simply run a straight line race and get a measured time, and "game speed" which is harder to quantify but is very much recognized. Often a player with a slow timed speed will appear faster on the field, or the opposite perception may well be true, a faster timed speed but appear slower on the field in game. The answer to how fast the RB-17 really is as follows. The player who is flying it, determines the actual game speed by precision management of the boost, turns, maneuvering on the map, and sometimes this takes into account terrain obstacles like mountains. If the player is a poor manager, you get a poor result, despite the plane!!! The RB-17 not NOT flying in a straight line and being clocked for timed speed? No. It is constantly going through maneuvers, accelerating and decelerating, turning and elevating and descending. It's "in game" speed is determined by the player and their skill. Don't keep quoting me timed speeds, all planes are managed by their players, so in battles where planes are not flying in straight lines, and accelerating in a constant fashion, the actual "game speed" is variable and highly circumstantial. 

   Once again, my grand counter point! IT IS THE SKILLED PLAYERS WHO MAKE PLANES SEEM "OVER POWERED", not the raw statistics which DO NOT reflect "in battle" speeds, maneuvering or circumstance. AND!!!! I have mentioned this multiple times in this thread and no one wants to comment or go anywhere near it. What about "over powered" players? Do they not have the same affect as the accusations against the RB-17 or any other plane? As a player do you not look at the other team and see someone who is a great player and go, "oh damn, they are in this battle, what to do". No one wants to talk about this. Why? No one wants to talk about the effects some players in this game have on battles. For example, and this is a real statistic. Player X, 538 battles in a 28 day period with a win rate of 89.59% So does player X make the planes they fly seem "over powered", at nearly 90% win rate, how could they not? This reinforces my point. 

    We need to start talking about what happens in actual in game battles and how perceptions, in and out of game statistics (for planes and players) all have an affect on what would or could be considered "over powered". It is the players. It is the players. And once again... it is the players. I write my points and they don't get specifically addressed. I get re-packaged generalizations and general statistics about the RB-17, but I'm telling you, that is not an accurate assessment of how it flies and functions in an active battle. Did anyone read any of my previous posts, because my points are being ignored.

 

Prenzlau


Edited by Prenzlau, 09 August 2018 - 02:53 PM.

The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


Bubba_Zanetti #65 Posted 09 August 2018 - 02:57 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1325 battles
  • 1,839
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 August 2018 - 08:03 AM, said:

Should these aircraft also be nerfed because of their potential to dominate?

 

Yes, all GA and Bombers should be removed.  They've never belonged in competitive game play.  Any team that attempted to use them in tournies quickly got squashed.

 

But that's not what WG/Persha has done here.  I have no idea what or who they're catering to.  The casual player base?  They've essentially abandoned clan activities, not that they made much of a concerted effort to start with other than clan tags. 

 

Then they offer a unique bonus in the way of Anniversaries that neither Tanks or Ships has.  What a great concept.  Each platform has uniqueness that can be taken advantage of by playing all three properties.

 

But ships still uses doubloons.  wth?!  Fine, there's shared experience like planes/tanks..oh wait...

 

At least the anniversaries are still there in planes for the vets and newbs to use as they grind, or just take advantage of the multiplied experience and occasional Free XP/Premium time rewards.  Nope...big middle finger to you, the loyal customer...we take away comrade...because....incompetence abounds throughout the entire organization.  No Alpha/Beta Emblem for you!

 

But please, keep adding crap no one wants, and mucking with sounds no one placed as high priority.  If anything, at least your attention seems focused here for the past month.  But then there was lots of activity last October too when 2.0 came out.

 

 

Whatever, add tons and tons of bombers and bots,  and then package it as a downloadable single player game on Steam.


 

“The sad truth is that the one thing around here is that we can always rely on is broken promises” & WarMagic the Scattering- Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo █ If a company can't handle the truth based on pixelated facts then they shouldn't be in this industry to begin with. Or stop overreaching at areas where they obviously lack the resources to make a sucess (WOWP)” - ArrowZ_  As it is, this “upgrade” is totally misdirected and completely ignores all player feedback over the past few years.  How this studio continues on with the parent company is a total mystery to me.” - Bobby_Tables  The only thing that will fix this game is for the developers to right click and hit send to trash.” - xPALEHORSEx  They've been around a good while and seen a lot of flak so they surely must know what they're doing by now.” - Catch21  All wargaming has done in all their games across the board have been stupid and greedy ideas. They are failing as a company so hard. - Veraxu  Maybe Persha should avoid patches with the number 5 in them... - mnbv-fockewulfe  You put the bombsite behind a lock until you get specialist for your bombers? That's just stupid. - comtedumas  claiming victory by fixing your own problems isn't victory, it's low brow chicanery.” - TheMadPizzler  Flying games generally don't have broad appeal, and this one has issues and the company tends to pour gasoline those issues, not fix them” - _Laserguided_   “I go to RU and (rhymes with git) all over dumb Slavs to express my rage.” - Rando CA  If you want to sell someone a car, you let them take it for a test drive, you don't run them over with it.” - Blast_Radius1  My quote + Your signature + Please = Thank You” - Prenzlau  Feelings aren't stats, now shut up and go eat tide pods” - Noreaga  “The player online count was removed October 2017 and we don't have plans to return this number to be displayed. That is the decision of the developers team.” - blindfold  After a While it Becomes Tiresome (07.06.15)” - MALICE_AT_BIRTH


DennyFish311 #66 Posted 09 August 2018 - 03:12 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 830 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Very well said and all so true.

Prenzlau #67 Posted 09 August 2018 - 03:59 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4780 battles
  • 336
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostArrowZ_, on 09 August 2018 - 04:50 AM, said:

^ That's gotta be a new record of wall-o-texts for someone defending the bomber class :teethhappy:

 

You know what happens when a particular aircraft(s) gets complained alot? - "OP this, nerf that, too stronk komrad!" <- Persha Devs whip out the good ol' Nerf Bat and start abusing its power like a bunch of idiots who obviously does not know the consequences of their decisions. Look at the Me262. Or P-51s up to the FJ-1 & F-86. Or the P.1056 (if people can remember how OP that heavy was at one point). Or the zeros a6m series up to Tier 7 - Used to be killing machines back in beta and it was hard not to see a zero in any battle. Everyone was flying them back then. And look what happened now...

 

    Thanks Arrow, my good friend. I know Arrow probably does not agree with me on some things, but I value his insight and thoughts. A very valid point, and yes, they probably will nerf things that don't need it and ignore things that do. 

    Some of the problems with this game could be solved with "leagues", and that are based on your performance in the game. What league you get to play in, and the competition would always be fair and balanced. BUT since there are not enough players, that would be impossible to have currently. If the day ever came about it would solve a lot of the match maker imbalances, but again you would need a much larger online population. 

    They need to hit a "home run" in the future, because the game is like a boat stuck on a reef, and it is getting battered by the waves. The boat might not sink, because it is kept afloat by the very thing that has trapped it, but it is no longer sea worthy. How is that for an analogy folks???

 

Prenzlau


Edited by Prenzlau, 09 August 2018 - 04:00 PM.

The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


GeorgePatton #68 Posted 09 August 2018 - 04:06 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 101 battles
  • 5,156
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostPrenzlau, on 09 August 2018 - 12:15 AM, said:

 

 

Hello George. 

 

    I have "one passed" caps in the RB-17, IF they are already depleted in strength, I have once or twice done it at full strength which is a real feat, and I think the only cap that you can do that to, is the mine or industrial plant. To one pass that you have to destroy the center, large target with one bomb drop, and then take out two more targets. There are two ways to accomplish this, get very lucky with one precision bomb drop on the center, or purchase the higher powered bombs and hope you hit it just right. Either way, it takes skill and some luck to do it. I usually two pass these caps, if I am alone. Two bombers working together can "one pass" any cap. Also, because the Do 217M has 8 bomb drops, it is easier to "one pass" an cap if you hit five targets, or possibly four, assuming the cap is not already depleted. A lot of human players struggle with their timing and are not as precise to "one pass' caps, much less "two pass them".

    Again, I suggest if anyone really wants to find out what life is like flying the RB-17, then please be my guest. If you get battles with another human and all bots, and you get the feeling of power and freedom, then to be honest that is not a fair environment to test the RB-17. If you get into a battle with 5 or 6 humans per side and some of those human players are skilled and dangerous, then the bar for the Rb-17 comes way down. It is then not so easy to cap and even survive. The problem here is, I'm the only Rb-17 player except for some insights from Corvus, that is commenting on the RB-17 on this thread. I respect your assertion, but I cannot agree with the idea that the RB-17's HP pool is enough, it is not. A tier 8 heavy fighter commonly rips the RB-17 to shreds, especially if it gets close. I know exactly what I am talking about because I fly it a lot, I know all the situations and have been through them. You don't have any bomber players coming out and saying the RB-17 is "over powered" because they know better.

    The tail gun is an effective weapon, and if used with skill it can devastate targets, especially light fighters and multi-roles that get caught behind. That said, the tail gun is vulnerable and often gets taken out by opposing fire, and against heavies, it does not take them down fast enough, same with ground attacks, so if an enemy heavy gets too close to the RB, advantage heavy. That tail gun is the only real defense for the bomber, it's firing arc is not universal, it has it's limitations and blind spot, and yes I know exactly where that is. I know exactly where to sit behind an RB and it cannot shoot me. It is quite true that the range of the tail gun is impressive, but again, it is a single gun and it has it's limitations. I think the vast majority of players think the RB-17 is "over powered" because they truly don't have a good idea on how to attack it or deal with it, and they think because it is a bomber that they might make quick work of it, so they get careless and foolish. I have seen first hand players who have changed their tactics and learned to effectively attack and kill RB-17's by simply having many battle against them. I also have seen players who fall into the same repeated failed tactics of trying to shoot the RB-17 down from behind at distances where their guns simply are not accurate or effective, but they don't realize this and simply die. 

    I'm only asking people to seriously consider my insights, from someone who flies the RB-17 and has much battle experience in one. Is it a truly interesting and wonderful higher tier bomber, yes it is. I will keep repeating this as long as I have to, the RB-17 is what it is, by itself, it is the player who is flying it that really makes it a dangerous and effective plane. You can say that with a lot of planes, and other bombers as well. The main purpose of the bomber is to capture sectors! If some players are able to fly a bomber and make it effective at capturing sectors, then maybe some reflection should take place on the tactics of other planes. If you look at my bomber stats, I'm very effective in every bomber! 

    Thanks for you post George, I really appreciate it.

 

Prenzlau

 

I think we're saying some of the same things - for me, the issue is that the things I outlined in my post come together to make the RB-17 the focus of a match rather than another aspect of the match. What I mean by that is that in a match with a human player flying the RB-17 someone (or multiple people) are going to have to focus on keeping the RB-17 contained which means one less aircraft available for actually getting ahead. Meanwhile, the RB-17 driver knows his only job is to do as much damage as quickly as possible before his/her eventual demise. As long as this keeps up, the team with a  human-piloted RB-17 has a MUCH greater chance of victory than a team without. It puts the team without the RB-17 on the defensive which we all know almost guarantees a loss.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

Edit: Also, in a match where I'm flying something slower and my Me.262 refuses to follow up that RB-17 I have no chance of victory...


Edited by GeorgePatton, 09 August 2018 - 04:07 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


Prenzlau #69 Posted 09 August 2018 - 04:59 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4780 battles
  • 336
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostGeorgePatton, on 09 August 2018 - 10:06 AM, said:

 

I think we're saying some of the same things - for me, the issue is that the things I outlined in my post come together to make the RB-17 the focus of a match rather than another aspect of the match. What I mean by that is that in a match with a human player flying the RB-17 someone (or multiple people) are going to have to focus on keeping the RB-17 contained which means one less aircraft available for actually getting ahead. Meanwhile, the RB-17 driver knows his only job is to do as much damage as quickly as possible before his/her eventual demise. As long as this keeps up, the team with a  human-piloted RB-17 has a MUCH greater chance of victory than a team without. It puts the team without the RB-17 on the defensive which we all know almost guarantees a loss.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

Edit: Also, in a match where I'm flying something slower and my Me.262 refuses to follow up that RB-17 I have no chance of victory...

 

    Thanks again George for your insight and opinions. We might be saying similar things, indeed. (sigh) I keep having to take issue with the idea of what the real "focus" is in battle. When there are other quality human players on the other team, and they are in fighters and heavies, it is a death struggle, and sometimes the RB-17 wins "a round" and sometimes they lose "a round". Both planes will be back for more and lock up again, in the struggle. I've seen smart players in heavies park themselves over the rocket base, or industrial plant, knowing that the RB-17 player will eventually have to go there. People need to quit assuming that just because the humans on the other team have a plan or strategy, that that somehow takes their victory away, it doesn't. Sometimes attacking the RB-17 and harassing it relentlessly, is the key to victory. As I have pointed out, more times now than I prefer to say, it is the player flying the plane that is the prime concern. George I have been in too many battles where my plane and my skill did not matter, I got rolled by the other team! If you were to say, "oh there is Prenzlau on the other team in his RB-17, we need to go after him or else he will make quick work of the caps", I cannot disagree with that. However, the idea that maybe someone else flying an RB-17 deserves the same appraisal, would possibly be in error. I get that the plane could add to the success of a player, but I still believe that it is the skill and experience of the pilot that makes the plane truly formidable. When Germany in WW2 had a shortage of skilled pilots, the luftwaffe got decimated, not because they did not have enough quality planes, but they ran out of quality pilots. 

    Sometimes the RB-17 is the focus for a defense plan, I agree with that. I also think it is often not the case, depending on the circumstances of the battle. So it can be, and yet it might not be. Every time I choose to fly the RB-17 I always think I'm going to win, but that is my swagger and attitude. I wish they still had win/lose stats attached to each plane. I lose my fill of battles, even with the RB-17, and sometimes as good as I am with it, I get absolutely rolled! People keep painting the RB-17 as this mega weapon that is an automatic loss for the other side, it is not. Any bomber player who knows their stuff will understand this. 

    As I pointed out (above) in my reply on Corvus's post, it is the players, far more than the plane. It is the quality of the player that far exceeds the quality of the plane. If the teams are one or two humans and all bots, then yes, the RB-17 on the other side appears to have a greater advantage, but don't give too much praise and greatness to the RB-17 if the battle order itself is flawed and unfair. I've been in too many battles with too many good human players to know it is a cake walk, it is not. But we need more human players and less bots! That is what I have been saying. If you wait for WG to save their own game, good luck. The players can take this game and demand change by playing it, being part of the change process and they might find the game is far more enjoyable with more humans per side. No marriage has ever worked when one party opts out. How do we get through all this George? 

 

Prenzlau


Edited by Prenzlau, 09 August 2018 - 05:02 PM.

The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


Reitousair #70 Posted 09 August 2018 - 05:05 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5923 battles
  • 385
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 August 2018 - 06:03 AM, said:

OK, I did read all of that, and agree, up to a point.  But I will offer a rebuttal.  Two, actually.

 

IL-40

 

IL-40P

 

In the hands of a skilled human, these planes can dominate battles.  In fact, if I see a human in one of these aircraft, I have to alter my plans to counter said human.  Should these aircraft also be nerfed because of their potential to dominate?  I pilot an RB-17 on occasion.  I am just starting out with it, and I don't have the low-level thing quite figured out, but I have figured out something important - even with all it's speed, even a mediocre pilot in a decently-fast aircraft can take it down.  Yes, I have seen some VERY good RB-17 pilots that are hard to touch while they are doing their bomber thing.  But at the same time, when I see an IL-40, or an IL-40P, I still have to EXACTLY the same thing I do when I see an RB-17.  I have to change my approach to a battle and try and counter the human player.

 

Yes, these planes should get nerfed, along with the Me P.1099 B-2 and Me P.1102 B. Even in 6v6 matches (I know low population is a joke but it happens once in a blue moon) these aircraft force the enemy team to work around them, this isn't as much of a problem with the IL-20 and Me 329 as one is hilariously slow and easy to intercept, and the other has very little capping power. They only really counter each other, Soviets have the superior capping speed while Germans have the superior traveling speed.

 

Now, when it's something like a training room with 8v8's, everybody being highly coordinated it's harder to use a GA without escort as strategies like teaming up on it or bringing a hard-counter aircraft will be employed. These aircraft however still usually become a match focus, you have to keep it escorted and you have to kill it because it can flip caps so fast compared to everything but U.S. MRF's.


I do fly Chinese aircraft a fair amount so... *ahem*

CHINA NUMBAH WAN

 

I even made a custom skin for my IL-10M!

 


CorvusCorvax #71 Posted 09 August 2018 - 06:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1329 battles
  • 1,249
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostReitousair, on 09 August 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

 

Yes, these planes should get nerfed, along with the Me P.1099 B-2 and Me P.1102 B. Even in 6v6 matches (I know low population is a joke but it happens once in a blue moon) these aircraft force the enemy team to work around them, this isn't as much of a problem with the IL-20 and Me 329 as one is hilariously slow and easy to intercept, and the other has very little capping power. They only really counter each other, Soviets have the superior capping speed while Germans have the superior traveling speed.

 

Now, when it's something like a training room with 8v8's, everybody being highly coordinated it's harder to use a GA without escort as strategies like teaming up on it or bringing a hard-counter aircraft will be employed. These aircraft however still usually become a match focus, you have to keep it escorted and you have to kill it because it can flip caps so fast compared to everything but U.S. MRF's.

 

Now that we are ranging out of the premium aircraft and into the tier tree aircraft, it's beginning to sound like less of a complaint against a specific aircraft, and more like a complaint against the game goals design.  2.0 was set up to focus more on strategic goals than tactical prowess, which focused the game on bombers and GAA, and away from LF and HF.  Whereas before2.0, ground pounding was little more than an opportunity to become the last aircraft alive for your side, it now has the potential to actually win battles.

 

So that brings up a question:  why shouldn't pilots have to adapt to the tactical and strategic conditions as they develop?  This is coming from a guy who does his very best work in aircraft that have the lowest 360-degree turn times, and who struggles with aircraft that have long turn times.



Prenzlau #72 Posted 09 August 2018 - 06:18 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4780 battles
  • 336
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostReitousair, on 09 August 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:

 

Yes, these planes should get nerfed, along with the Me P.1099 B-2 and Me P.1102 B. Even in 6v6 matches (I know low population is a joke but it happens once in a blue moon) these aircraft force the enemy team to work around them, this isn't as much of a problem with the IL-20 and Me 329 as one is hilariously slow and easy to intercept, and the other has very little capping power. They only really counter each other, Soviets have the superior capping speed while Germans have the superior traveling speed.

 

Now, when it's something like a training room with 8v8's, everybody being highly coordinated it's harder to use a GA without escort as strategies like teaming up on it or bringing a hard-counter aircraft will be employed. These aircraft however still usually become a match focus, you have to keep it escorted and you have to kill it because it can flip caps so fast compared to everything but U.S. MRF's.

 

Even in 6v6 matches (I know low population is a joke but it happens once in a blue moon) these aircraft force the enemy team to work around them,

 

I would ask for some further elaboration when you say "work around them". When I fly, regardless of the tier, or plane I am flying, I don't work around anyone. When I see a target that needs to be attacked and destroyed, I do so. Sometimes I lose and sometimes I win. When I see another human in a bomber opposite of my side, and I am in a bomber as well, I always try to "out bomb them". If I am in a different type plane, then my goal is to out fly them and destroy them. I think all players are on "seek and destroy missions" with some tactics sprinkled in. 

What do you mean please?

 

Prenzlau


The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


Prenzlau #73 Posted 09 August 2018 - 06:43 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4780 battles
  • 336
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 August 2018 - 12:00 PM, said:

 

Now that we are ranging out of the premium aircraft and into the tier tree aircraft, it's beginning to sound like less of a complaint against a specific aircraft, and more like a complaint against the game goals design.  2.0 was set up to focus more on strategic goals than tactical prowess, which focused the game on bombers and GAA, and away from LF and HF.  Whereas before2.0, ground pounding was little more than an opportunity to become the last aircraft alive for your side, it now has the potential to actually win battles.

 

So that brings up a question:  why shouldn't pilots have to adapt to the tactical and strategic conditions as they develop?  This is coming from a guy who does his very best work in aircraft that have the lowest 360-degree turn times, and who struggles with aircraft that have long turn times.

 

 

So that brings up a question:  why shouldn't pilots have to adapt to the tactical and strategic conditions as they develop?  This is coming from a guy who does his very best work in aircraft that have the lowest 360-degree turn times, and who struggles with aircraft that have long turn times.

 

    That is why I started this thread. Adapting to the current game and it's conditions is the only way to progress and develop. I'm trying to clear up some misconceptions, and misunderstandings. I'm also trying to understand other people's points of view, even if mine keep going unanswered. Remember when we flew RB-17's together Corvus? We had fun, but I'd say at least half of the battles were real struggles. We also had a five or six battle losing streak. I spend my time writing and sharing my opinions, making points and I try to be insightful. I keep asking myself if anyone actually reads what I write? I talk a great deal about how raw stats don't equate to action stats, out of game controlled conditions versus in game variable conditions. Not a peep. None saying they agree and no one saying they don't. Reitousair tries to communicate, and does share, but to be honest he avoids and ignores most of my points and packages and re-packages the same old points with erroneous conclusions with a few generally true statements mixed in. 

    So maybe I will go back to the esoteric and abstract rhetoric that bothers or amuses so many people. So many made up minds, and very little room for contemplation. I shall lament. 

 

Prenzlau


Edited by Prenzlau, 09 August 2018 - 06:45 PM.

The Zigfreid & Prenzlau Bombing Company

"We're not just delivering the mail..."

 

 

 


Reitousair #74 Posted 09 August 2018 - 07:11 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5923 battles
  • 385
  • [HVAR] HVAR
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 August 2018 - 11:00 AM, said:

 

Now that we are ranging out of the premium aircraft and into the tier tree aircraft, it's beginning to sound like less of a complaint against a specific aircraft, and more like a complaint against the game goals design.  2.0 was set up to focus more on strategic goals than tactical prowess, which focused the game on bombers and GAA, and away from LF and HF.  Whereas before2.0, ground pounding was little more than an opportunity to become the last aircraft alive for your side, it now has the potential to actually win battles.

 

So that brings up a question:  why shouldn't pilots have to adapt to the tactical and strategic conditions as they develop?  This is coming from a guy who does his very best work in aircraft that have the lowest 360-degree turn times, and who struggles with aircraft that have long turn times.

 

Yup, we are now calling into question the entirety of Conquests design. Attrition works a lot better I've found where you need GA/Bombers to win a game, but they aren't the dominating force when it comes to winning (even when it's top-tier GA and low-alt RB-17's,) you need both capping AND killing, while in Conquest it's attacking/defending. Top-tier GA/RB-17 have such incredible attacking power that usually only low-alt turnfighters can match in defending power, high-speed fighters and HF's don't have much attacking or defending power comparatively and are usually relegated to pure interception or escort; at least when it comes to tier 9/10 GA and the RB-17 this makes them the focus of the match as they are the ones that can flip caps thus everybody else needs to defend against them or run interference to prevent them from getting intercepted so they can flip caps. The only other class that can do this are MRF's, however they take longer and are more inconsistent with varying levels of ordinance and longer reloads (in tier 8 the RB-17 will outspeed all of them but the Me 109 TL and it carries more ordinance than all of them, by the way.)

 

We can make maps layouts all garrisons, strongholds, airbases, airstrips, and maybe command centers to try and balance out the attacking power between GA, Bombers, LF's, MRF's, and  HF's. But honestly I'd rather see everything get buffed rather than nerfed however right now we have planes hitting the limits of the game (tier 10 HF's) so we can't really go any higher which means it can only go downhill from here until they expand the limits on the game.

 

Here's a video explaining why buffs should be done rather than nerfs;

 

This appears to a be a discussion where people are talking past each other. I'm referring to more competitive play where planes are pushed to their known limits (occasionally breaking them and setting new known limitations) while others appear to be referring to more casual play where people are thrown into matches with each other, no matter the skill level or status of their aircraft. Some of the best pilots can be dominant forces just through sheer skill mismatch, but this does not mean they will always be dominating matches through skill, especially when they're against each other. If they're in an aircraft with relatively low capabilities they will have a hard time dealing with somebody in a more capable aircraft. For example: even-skilled players, one is in an IL-10M, the other is in an RB-17, what chance does the IL-10M have when it comes to flipping caps? Another example: even-skilled players, La-15 vs Me P.1101, these two aircraft have advantages over each other and are approaching equally as effective at attacking/defending as well as intercepting/interfering, it then defaults to who can gain the advantage on the other. 

 

So, yet again I will have to reiterate; there is a difference between skilled play and top-tier plane.


I do fly Chinese aircraft a fair amount so... *ahem*

CHINA NUMBAH WAN

 

I even made a custom skin for my IL-10M!

 


CorvusCorvax #75 Posted 09 August 2018 - 08:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 1329 battles
  • 1,249
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 09 August 2018 - 06:43 PM, said:

 

 

So that brings up a question:  why shouldn't pilots have to adapt to the tactical and strategic conditions as they develop?  This is coming from a guy who does his very best work in aircraft that have the lowest 360-degree turn times, and who struggles with aircraft that have long turn times.

 

    That is why I started this thread. Adapting to the current game and it's conditions is the only way to progress and develop. I'm trying to clear up some misconceptions, and misunderstandings. I'm also trying to understand other people's points of view, even if mine keep going unanswered. Remember when we flew RB-17's together Corvus? We had fun, but I'd say at least half of the battles were real struggles. We also had a five or six battle losing streak. I spend my time writing and sharing my opinions, making points and I try to be insightful. I keep asking myself if anyone actually reads what I write? I talk a great deal about how raw stats don't equate to action stats, out of game controlled conditions versus in game variable conditions. Not a peep. None saying they agree and no one saying they don't. Reitousair tries to communicate, and does share, but to be honest he avoids and ignores most of my points and packages and re-packages the same old points with erroneous conclusions with a few generally true statements mixed in. 

    So maybe I will go back to the esoteric and abstract rhetoric that bothers or amuses so many people. So many made up minds, and very little room for contemplation. I shall lament. 

 

Prenzlau

 

I do remember, much to my shame.  I should have been flying an aircraft I was better at.  Which, as it turns out, is just about any other aircraft.  :)  We struggled because I didn't hold up my end, not because the aircraft, or the bots, or any other thing.  It was me, and my lack of skill.

 

I should have fired up my Do-335 and escorted you around the map.  With my load of bombs, and the ability to knock fighters off your tail, we could have spent the entire evening in the win column.  Hell, let's just say I went for broke and grabbed my Pancake.  Those bombs would have also come in handy, yes?  And that's a plane that almost flies itself.

 

My apologies for being such a weak suck bomber pilot.  You deserved better.

 

To Glenn - I think it's less of a talking past, and more of a philosophical difference.  I welcome some of the 2.0 changes, including the idea that strategy should be part of the game.  I also welcome the greater role that GAA and bombers have in the game.  I very much enjoy a fast low-level flight in my A-26.  I am better with that airplane than the RB-17, but maybe that's because I've played it more.  But it would be sad if the only thing I could do with the aircraft is stooge around at 4000m and look through a bombsight, dodging flak.  That sounds boring as hell.  The same with the RB-17.  At altitude, it is super-boring.  On the deck, there is all sorts of stuff to see and do.  :)  In addition, I also like doing the GAA thing, and also enjoy playing against good GAA fliers.  Pushing those folks into air combat aircraft takes away a dimension of the game.  For sure, I was not a big fan of the GAA in 1.9.  I used them, and I often used them as very heavy fighters, asking my team mates to draw them to me, and down on the deck.  Then I would pound them, and my team mates would finish them off.  I once had 9 assists in a battle, and no ground targets damaged.  That is a giant philosophical difference between the two versions, where the same aircraft I now use for air-to-air only when I can't pass up the opportunity I used exclusively as an air-to-air asset in 1.9.  GAAs weren't built for air-to-air, so just by changing the game focus, they finally got a real role to play.  That they can dominate in the hands of a skilled pilot is good for the game, IMO.



Shizzywiznut #76 Posted 09 August 2018 - 10:38 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2524 battles
  • 167
  • Member since:
    07-08-2014

View PostSpiritFoxMY, on 07 August 2018 - 11:27 PM, said:

 

Honestly, it's not like we don't do this. Against any other plane (yes, even Spitfires and Pancakes) its "who is playing". I mean, do you think we're all windowlicking morons who don't know what to do and how to do it?

Never implied that you did not know what you are doing, only stated what I do.

 

RB-17s are the only plane that forces me to play differently. Basically as soon as I see an RB in battle, my first thought is "how high is he flying?". If he goes to altitude, then its a sane game. If I see him hedge hopping, I know it's going to be a struggle that gas me foaming at the mouth. 

I was stating that I do this no matter what plane I am flying

 

There are conditions where you can beat them. CC maps are the most obvious as they can be camped and RBs have little recourse to stop bomber flights. I've dealt with double RBs, single RB hedge hoppers and the lot.

 

But it isn't fun. And it's often a losing game regardless unless your bots also know what they're doing. I've been kicked by a 48% WR player (the same one I mentioned above) more times than I can count when he's in his RB. 

 

As I have, but fun is a relative term if it is a losing game others may be having fun winning, while others may be having fun just playing....

 

 

In summary - beating a skilled RB player requires superior map awareness, strategy and more than a bit if luck. If your bots are switched on and your GAAs don't suck, then a bit of map strategy will win. But... well... bots. 

 

But what do I know? I'm the whiny idiot 40%-er who doesn't know how to fly. 

 

Win rate in this version of the game matters very little to some, others strive for it, if you're not having fun I empathize with you, I have had more than enough of less than desirable days where I should have removed this game, I just try to get better at it and while the RB can be a challenge to beat, beating a good player is always personally more fulfilling to me.

 

Side note: more R4M practice tonight

 



ComradeZ #77 Posted 10 August 2018 - 12:39 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2813 battles
  • 142
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
The hell you guys want to remove GAA. I just spent 280k plus grinding up my Tier X! :izmena:

ArrowZ_ #78 Posted 10 August 2018 - 01:13 AM

    Captain

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 948 battles
  • 3,059
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View PostComradeZ, on 10 August 2018 - 10:09 AM, said:

The hell you guys want to remove GAA. I just spent 280k plus grinding up my Tier X! :izmena:

 

 

Don't be silly. GAAs are here to stay. Whether we like it or not. Or until the game shuts down. Now where did I put that Nerf Bat...:hiding:


That Ozi Client Side Lagger

 

WOWP 2.0 Videos Playlist


MadJackChurchil #79 Posted 10 August 2018 - 01:57 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 960 battles
  • 39
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 09 August 2018 - 04:59 PM, said:

    As I pointed out (above) in my reply on Corvus's post, it is the players, far more than the plane. It is the quality of the player that far exceeds the quality of the plane. If the teams are one or two humans and all bots, then yes, the RB-17 on the other side appears to have a greater advantage, but don't give too much praise and greatness to the RB-17 if the battle order itself is flawed and unfair....

 

Prenzlau

 

Ok, you have a point. I should probably correct my whining about RB-17. Will be speaking as Me262 pilot (plane that should in theory be counter to RB-17). 90% of the time, RB-17 are not an issue. When played by bots, they are mince meat. When played by unsklilled people, the same thing, just need to actually fly the plane. When played by someone very skilled, in particular in 1v1 or 2v2 match (I think I had few matches against you and...someone... in bombers) I don't think there is much I can do to prevent you from winning. In RB-17 you can counter most of the ways I can attack you. The remaining way is usually too slow, so you cap before I do it. I shoot you down in the end, you win. And I am not convinced the situation would be different even if my skill was equal to yours.

By that I don't undermine your skills and I don't say that properly flying RB-17 is easy. Its most certainly not. But I feel like above certain bomber skill threshold, in 1v1 I don't stand a chance. If there were more people, it would be different. Currently its not.


Edited by MadJackChurchil, 10 August 2018 - 01:59 AM.


MadJackChurchil #80 Posted 10 August 2018 - 02:00 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 960 battles
  • 39
  • [FK] FK
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostSonicPariah, on 09 August 2018 - 02:13 PM, said:

Watch the aggressive jabs at other players, all.

 

As for the current meta, there will be some major changes coming to bombing in general with the next Update that should help address these issues at least in part.

 

Perhaps one unrelated question. What is the approximate time frame for the next patch?





Also tagged with OP, Unfair, Premium, Whiners

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users