3
Second Lieutenant
No complaining here, I just found myself wondering how popular the way WoWP releases new lines is.
Do most people like it, or is the full-line release more popular?
Just asking. For those who have experienced the full line release style, the poll is there. For the rest of you, you can try and weigh in in the comments if you want, but know that I'll take your words with a grain of salt.
Regards, Legoboy0401
An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.
#Failureisalwaysanoption
#Givingupneveris
Captain
Vote: stabilise the game, balance it and THEN add new lines.
***
But a truce to this mournful story
For death is a distant friend
So here's to a life of glory
And a laurel to crown each end
Second Lieutenant
SpiritFoxMY, on 19 February 2019 - 04:53 PM, said:
Vote: stabilise the game, balance it and THEN add new lines.
Agreed wholeheartedly, but WG won't listen. I just want to know WHEN WE DO GET NEW LINES, WHICH IS THE PREFERRED STYLE OF RELEASING THEM?
Edited by legoboy0401, 20 February 2019 - 01:02 AM.
An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.
#Failureisalwaysanoption
#Givingupneveris
Second Lieutenant
Fair warning. My success rate at speculative guesswork is on par with my WinRate. Hit or Miss.
I start on the right track and then sometimes make a weird left turn and get lost in the weeds ...
Specialist Planes earned: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, USSR, Europe
Light Fighters: Ar 68/80, Bf 109 B/E/E-3/F/G, Fw 159, He 51/100 D-1/112, Ho 229, Me 209 A/ v4/ P.1092/1101, Spit.V DB605, Ta 152
Ki-5/8/10/27/43-I/43-II, A4N, A5M, A6M1/2/3, Hurricane Ia, Bristol 146, Spitfire Vb IM, DH.100 F1, I-17, Yak-1, MiG-3
P-23/36/36C/39N-1/40, XP-31/36F/55, Hawk 75M, Model 81A-1, , P-51A, XF15C,
MultiRole Fighters: Type 91, P-12/26/35/43, XP-44, P-47B, F11C-2, F4F/U-1,
Typhoon, Ar 65, Fw 190 A-1/5/D, BV P.210/212.03, I-5/15/16(e)(l)
Heavy Fighters: F5F, P-38 F/J, XP-58/75, P-82 B, Beaufighter/ V, Ao 192, Fw 57, Bf 110 B/C-6/E, Me 410, Bf 109 Z, Do 335 A-1, BV P.203, Me 262, Tu-1, SE 100,
Attack Aircraft: BSh-2, All zeGermans, Wirraway
Bombers: B-17 G, Do 17 Z / 217 M, He 111 H2, Ju 288 C, Pe-2
First Lieutenant
I much prefer the partial line version with some lines linking across to others at odd spots, some lines blending back into others & some lines just left hanging short of T10.
It enables new content to be available faster or at all when development hits snags with either finding an appropriate vehicle for some tiers, getting enough archive material or balancing stuff.
Early WoT was like that & it was fine.
I really enjoyed hunting through the Tech Tree planning my progress across multiple lines to ensure I get a key shared module from stock to avoid a nasty grind or get to a cool tank with minimum XP.
Now they've spent lots of time creating full lines T2-10, removing cross links, making up [edited]to fill tiers etc & outright cancelled some stuff.
WoWS is a nearly pure linear experience with no shared modules at all, no cross-overs & lots of made up (mostly WWII era) refits of ships (even paper ships get refits) & outright invented ships to fill numbers.
WoWP is in a state like old WoT and I like it, though I'm concerned that recent partial lines lacking shared modules indicates WG intends to move to the stale linear model.
Edited by hoom, 20 February 2019 - 11:46 AM.
Major
There is so much to reflect on in that poll...
I'll have to get back w/ you on it
.
dang... whole a lott'a thought went into the creation of this thread
hmmm
I miss Prentzalou
Second Lieutenant
Fair warning. My success rate at speculative guesswork is on par with my WinRate. Hit or Miss.
I start on the right track and then sometimes make a weird left turn and get lost in the weeds ...
Specialist Planes earned: Japan, USA, UK, Germany, USSR, Europe
Light Fighters: Ar 68/80, Bf 109 B/E/E-3/F/G, Fw 159, He 51/100 D-1/112, Ho 229, Me 209 A/ v4/ P.1092/1101, Spit.V DB605, Ta 152
Ki-5/8/10/27/43-I/43-II, A4N, A5M, A6M1/2/3, Hurricane Ia, Bristol 146, Spitfire Vb IM, DH.100 F1, I-17, Yak-1, MiG-3
P-23/36/36C/39N-1/40, XP-31/36F/55, Hawk 75M, Model 81A-1, , P-51A, XF15C,
MultiRole Fighters: Type 91, P-12/26/35/43, XP-44, P-47B, F11C-2, F4F/U-1,
Typhoon, Ar 65, Fw 190 A-1/5/D, BV P.210/212.03, I-5/15/16(e)(l)
Heavy Fighters: F5F, P-38 F/J, XP-58/75, P-82 B, Beaufighter/ V, Ao 192, Fw 57, Bf 110 B/C-6/E, Me 410, Bf 109 Z, Do 335 A-1, BV P.203, Me 262, Tu-1, SE 100,
Attack Aircraft: BSh-2, All zeGermans, Wirraway
Bombers: B-17 G, Do 17 Z / 217 M, He 111 H2, Ju 288 C, Pe-2
Senior Master Sergeant
My 75 tier 10 vehicles
WoT (19): M48A5 Patton, T110E5, T57, E 50 M, E 100, Maus, Jagdpanzer E 100, G.W. E 100, Object 140, IS-7, AMX 13 105, EBR 105, Batignolles-Châtillon 25 t, AMX 50 B, AMX 50 Foch B, AMX 50 Foch (155), B.C. 155 58, Strv 103B, Progetto 65
WoWP (15): F-86A, F7U, XF-90, Yak-30, Mig-15bis, IL-40P, Su-10, Me P.1101, BV P.215.02, Me 262 III, Me P.1102 B, EF 131, Swift, Javelin, J7W3
WoWS (41): Shimakaze, Harugumo, Zao, Yoshino, Yamato, Hakuryu, Gearing, Des Moines, Worcester, Puerto Rico, Salem, Montana, Vermont, Ohio, Midway, Khabarovsk, Grozovoi, Moskva, A. Nevsky, Petropavlovsk, Stalingrad, Smolensk, Kremlin, Slava, Z-52, Hindenburg, Großer Kurfürst, Daring, Minotaur, Conqueror, Thunderer, Audacious, Marceau, Kléber, Henri IV, République, Bourgogne, YueYang, Venezia, Halland, Smaland
Yes, I have tier 10 vehicles of each type in each game. PM me if you have done it as well because I have not yet found someone who has.
Second Lieutenant
Silvin, on 20 February 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:
Absolutely. I am completely the same way. Because of this, I probably won't even bother going down a single Japanese Tech Tree line until the Japanese Bombers come out, because they are planes that suit my style, that, and specializing ANY bomber takes an eternity, so by the time I have the FIRST out of the three specialized, THE REST OF THE LINE WILL BE IN.
hoom, on 20 February 2019 - 03:45 AM, said:
I much prefer the partial line version with some lines linking across to others at odd spots, some lines blending back into others & some lines just left hanging short of T10.
It enables new content to be available faster or at all when development hits snags with either finding an appropriate vehicle for some tiers, getting enough archive material or balancing stuff.
Early WoT was like that & it was fine.
I really enjoyed hunting through the Tech Tree planning my progress across multiple lines to ensure I get a key shared module from stock to avoid a nasty grind or get to a cool tank with minimum XP.
Now they've spent lots of time creating full lines T2-10, removing cross links, making up [edited]to fill tiers etc & outright cancelled some stuff.
WoWS is a nearly pure linear experience with no shared modules at all, no cross-overs & lots of made up (mostly WWII era) refits of ships (even paper ships get refits) & outright invented ships to fill numbers.
WoWP is in a state like old WoT and I like it, though I'm concerned that recent partial lines lacking shared modules indicates WG intends to move to the stale linear model.
WoWS was only that way because of, I believe, the different evolution of ship design. Class designs weren't often modified into another class, for obvious reasons. I think Ise, Hyuga, Courageous, Glorious, and Furious(the latter as she was designed), were pretty much the only exceptions. The aviation cruisers were just weird cruisers, not carriers, while the battleship-carriers were both battleships and carriers, though they weren't amazing at either.
The trio of ridiculousness,(as I call Courageous, Glorious, and Furious-as-designed), were just enormous light cruisers.
Do note, though, that at present WoWS has none of these in-game.
WoT has the same tangled-web tech trees as WoWP, but when they release a line, THEY RELEASE IT ALL AT ONCE,(JUST LIKE WoWS) NOT 3 OR 4 AT A TIME.
An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.
#Failureisalwaysanoption
#Givingupneveris
Major
Command Chief Master Sergeant
legoboy0401, on 20 February 2019 - 07:41 PM, said:
Absolutely. I am completely the same way. Because of this, I probably won't even bother going down a single Japanese Tech Tree line until the Japanese Bombers come out, because they are planes that suit my style, that, and specializing ANY bomber takes an eternity, so by the time I have the FIRST out of the three specialized, THE REST OF THE LINE WILL BE IN.
WoWS was only that way because of, I believe, the different evolution of ship design. Class designs weren't often modified into another class, for obvious reasons. I think Ise, Hyuga, Courageous, Glorious, and Furious(the latter as she was designed), were pretty much the only exceptions. The aviation cruisers were just weird cruisers, not carriers, while the battleship-carriers were both battleships and carriers, though they weren't amazing at either.
The trio of ridiculousness,(as I call Courageous, Glorious, and Furious-as-designed), were just enormous light cruisers.
Do note, though, that at present WoWS has none of these in-game.
WoT has the same tangled-web tech trees as WoWP, but when they release a line, THEY RELEASE IT ALL AT ONCE,(JUST LIKE WoWS) NOT 3 OR 4 AT A TIME.
Comparing tech trees of the 3 titles is pointless, for one the the other two titles unlike WOWP are successful games that have access to more resources allowing them to release more content in a timely manner.
Another reason being that all 3 games were developed by different studios that didn't necessarily follow the exact same recipe.
With the way things are now with WOWP you should just be happy that there is a game to play & they are still releasing new content at all.
Second Lieutenant
Perco_lator, on 20 February 2019 - 07:09 PM, said:
Comparing tech trees of the 3 titles is pointless, for one the the other two titles unlike WOWP are successful games that have access to more resources allowing them to release more content in a timely manner.
Another reason being that all 3 games were developed by different studios that didn't necessarily follow the exact same recipe.
With the way things are now with WOWP you should just be happy that there is a game to play & they are still releasing new content at all.
I am. It just makes new lines less enticing to grind a lot of the time, that is all.
An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.
#Failureisalwaysanoption
#Givingupneveris
Second Lieutenant
An average player with an average goal: greatness, someday. Today, mediocrity will have to suffice. But no matter, I will always play to the best of my ability, and I will always strive to make the best of my ability just that little bit stronger and better.
#Failureisalwaysanoption
#Givingupneveris
Second Lieutenant
I'd have to side with WG and support partial release for this.
When they try to introduce a line with new features (such as "huge gun HF" of Japan and "ultra-long chain bomber" of US), they need a chance to watch their performance and balance them accordingly.
By releasing partially, they can minimize the initial impact to the whole gameplay and focus on handling a few problems at a time.
Major
partial releases seem better to me... gets new planes into our hands somewhat faster, i would think
i like the three-baggers, like the japanese heavies and the US bombers seems very 'manageable'
edit: yet another great topic, LB!
Edited by trikke, 27 February 2019 - 01:37 AM.
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
