42 replies to this topic

[Prenzlau]

   (I was going to add this post as a comment to Legoboy's Pe-2 thread, but I think it might be better to stand on it's own and have more consideration. So if it sounds like a reply, it kind of was.)

 

   Actually a point I was trying in vain to make about a year ago, I should reprise. I find that a great deal of interest and speculation is placed on the planes themselves as if they are the driver for success and results. Certainly the attributes and quality of the plane matter to a point, but what really makes a plane effective is the aptitude and experience of the player. This is consistent with most things, for it is the operator that is the driver and the material is just the tool. 

 

    People can debate the aspects of the Pe-2, or any other plane type and that is perfectly fine for what it is. When flown by a skilled and experienced player the Pe-2 or any other plane can exceed what could be described as it's base probable expectations. In other words, the more skilled the player, the more any plane can become much more successful statistically. Players who fly a certain plane in great volume can be much more effective than a player who only has limited time and experience. 

 

    This was the foundation for my argument in which when considering "buffs" and "nerfs", the decision should be weighed against average performances by average players, which make up the bulk of the volume of players. If there is a small group of highly skilled players flying a certain plane, of course that particular plane is going to seem "over powered". The reason is not necessarily the impact of the planes attributes as much as it is the sheer elevation that the highly skilled player contributes. No one a year ago wanted to have an honest discussion about "over powered players" and how they affect this game, instead it always gravitates back to the planes and their base statistical expectations. 

 

    Any plane is just a tool, a bunch of statistical attributes and qualities, what creates success and results is how that plane is commanded by the player. One of the reasons why the match maker struggles to create any semblance of "fairness" is that often it has no way of appraising potential skill, and thus impact on any battle that any particular player can make. If players had rankings, or were ranked into groups, or levels, this could be added. As far as I am aware, the match maker just focuses on plane type and numbers of bots versus humans. If there are other elements, maybe we should be aware of them? 

 

    I like many others, have been placed on teams where the other human players were statistically poor. Some of which could have less than 500, 200 or even 100 battles and win rates below 50%, 45%, and 40%. I think these types of balances should be open for debate. Should the match maker simply be "the luck of the draw" or should be as players ask or request something a bit more sophisticated and balanced? I have gone on record saying match maker will never be "fair", and that will always be the case, but that said, there is a lot of room for improvement. 

 

    Lastly, "over powered players" are not as "over powered" when competing against peers of similar skills and experience. In more balanced and evenly matched battles, planes do not seem over powered either. It is my assertion that the illusion of whether something seems "over powered" or not is based on very wide "mis-matches" between players during battles. Also in more of an evenly matched and balanced match maker, higher win rate players would see some decline and lower win rate players would see some increase. 

 

    The questions are, what is the goal of WG and what is the desire of the player base? Are they similar or vastly different? 

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau

Edited by Prenzlau, 26 March 2019 - 04:09 PM.

[Twindwarfs]

When everybody says one plane is overpowered regardless of their skills, then the plane is almost for sure overpowered. For some other planes, it is more controversial, because those planes are good in some but not everyone's hand. For example, I have never heard anyone says Me P. 1092 is a bad plane. Good players like it. Mediocre players like it. Bad players like it. Does Me P. 1092 need a nerf? I will vote for it. For another example, even after so many nerfs, RB-17 is still overpowered in good players' hand. But not everyone can fly it well. It is quite often that you see some RB-17 players get similar personal points as bots. For the average level players, I would say RB-17 is well balanced. Does RB-17 need a nerf? I don't know.

 

Another conundrum is how to balance the fairness for teams and fairness for players. If you want to balance the player skills for each team, then you have to team up good players with bad players to make the teams balanced. But why good players are supposed to be teamed up with bad players? So when you getting better and better at the game, you are just getting worse and worse teammates and your win rate is still 50% or a little bit above. Why is that fair to the good players? I quitted so many enjoyable games because those games are no longer enjoyable after I'm getting better. I just get worse and worse teammates till the point that the games become sheer frustration. Ignoring MMR and focus on the tier and plane type is that bad. It is not making the teams balanced but it rewards good performance. As players are getting better and better at the game, they win more games instead of getting worse teammates. But the downside, of course, is the game is a frustration for bad players. They always lose until they get better. But most of them just quit before getting good enough. It is an unsolvable problem, fairness for the teams or fairness for the players.

Edited by Twindwarfs, 26 March 2019 - 07:13 PM.

[nwlxn12]

Prenzlau, on 26 March 2019 - 10:08 AM, said:

    This was the foundation for my argument in which when considering "buffs" and "nerfs", the decision should be weighed against average performances by average players, which make up the bulk of the volume of players. If there is a small group of highly skilled players flying a certain plane, of course that particular plane is going to seem "over powered". The reason is not necessarily the impact of the planes attributes as much as it is the sheer elevation that the highly skilled player contributes. No one a year ago wanted to have an honest discussion about "over powered players" and how they affect this game, instead it always gravitates back to the planes and their base statistical expectations. 

 

That is a valid statement, but I would also say, that a highly skilled player in one class of plane should not have any more influence on the outcome of a game than another highly skilled person playing a different class of plane.  If one plane class can out perform another  with equally skilled players playing them, I would argue that there is a balance issue because at that point, one plane is allowing a player a greater opportunity in the match.

[Stygian_Alchemist]

I've learned that most people who ask for nerfs are generally not the best players and/or haven't figured out how to handle an aspect of a game and/or don't understand that situationally their plane/class/whatever doesn't always get to be equal. That's part of balance too. 

I've learned that skilled players who ask for nerfs are almost always looking to their advantage, not actual game mechanics or balance. Usually it's just whatever they think has enough of an edge to make up for their mega skill or whatever in their mind that drives them to go "uhhhh, this needs nerfed and nerfed and nerfed."

Unless the majority of a playerbase is migrating to a class or plane because it auto-wins every single time, it's not an imbalanced part of a game. Full stop.

Insofar as MM... MM will never be perfect, but I feel the system they use to weight planes/etc. needs more factors to it to make it -slightly- better. I've made suggestions about that repeatedly and WG's stance seems to basically be "It works."

 

[Stygian_Alchemist]

nwlxn12, on 26 March 2019 - 01:46 PM, said:

 

That is a valid statement, but I would also say, that a highly skilled player in one class of plane should not have any more influence on the outcome of a game than another highly skilled person playing a different class of plane.  If one plane class can out perform another  with equally skilled players playing them, I would argue that there is a balance issue because at that point, one plane is allowing a player a greater opportunity in the match.

 

Yep. I was getting my face toasted off in my P1092 the other morning. Repeatedly and harshly by a pilot in an XF-90. Had it happen again last night with a 262 HGIII while I was flying the P1101.

Fly, fly, kill, kill.. wait what.. I didn't even get a warning someone was behind me and I'm already dead.

 

[Prenzlau]

Twindwarfs, on 26 March 2019 - 01:08 PM, said:

When everybody says one plane is overpowered regardless of their skills, then the plane is almost for sure overpowered. For some other planes, it is more controversial, because those planes are good in some but not everyone's hand. For example, I have never heard anyone says Me P. 1092 is a bad plane. Good players like it. Mediocre players like it. Bad players like it. Does Me P. 1092 need a nerf? I will vote for it. For another example, even after so many nerfs, RB-17 is still overpowered in good players' hand. But not everyone can fly it well. It is quite often that you see some RB-17 players get similar personal points as bots. For the average level players, I would say RB-17 is well balanced. Does RB-17 need a nerf? I don't know.

 

Another conundrum is how to balance the fairness for teams and fairness for players. If you want to balance the player skills for each team, then you have to team up good players with bad players to make the teams balanced. But why good players are supposed to be teamed up with bad players? So when you getting better and better at the game, you are just getting worse and worse teammates and your win rate is still 50% or a little bit above. Why is that fair to the good players? I quitted so many enjoyable games because those games are no longer enjoyable after I'm getting better. I just get worse and worse teammates till the point that the games become sheer frustration. Ignoring MMR and focus on the tier and plane type is that bad. It is not making the teams balanced but it rewards good performance. As players are getting better and better at the game, they win more games instead of getting worse teammates. But the downside, of course, is the game is a frustration for bad players. They always lose until they get better. But most of them just quit before getting good enough. It is an unsolvable problem, fairness for the teams or fairness for the players.

 

    Thanks for the well thought out response. 

 

    In response to the upper paragraph. I would assert that we should be cautious with the "nerf gun" just because a particular plane is successful. I do agree to a certain point that obvious over powered advantages or under powered disadvantages should be corrected and balanced. Beyond the obvious it really comes down to personal opinion and perspective. In a sense some players who have put in hundreds of hours of their time, and learned from their vast experiences, should not be penalized by having their planes constantly nerfed because they are very good flying them. Case in point, if I'm in a bomber and I shoot down an attacking heavy fighter with my turret guns, does that mean my plane is over powered, or does it mean I have learned the skills to be very effective? All I'm asserting is that there is a danger of over-nerfing to the point where even the best players are barely better than average ones because their planes are nothing more than "dull blades". 

 

    I think one way that addresses the frustration and player learning curves is the clan system that is not being supported or elevated by WG. Nothing would improve this game more than a supported and structured clan system. All players would become valuable assets to established and new clans, and the population of players would increase, thus the revenue of this game would increase. Events could then be clan oriented and thus very popular. Players that need help, and support could find that possibly by joining a clan. The problem is that there is a definite reluctance and resistance from WG to the very idea of promoting clans, rankings, clan events, etc. Also, we would never want this game's population to increase to the point were we would no longer need bots, would we? The players have always been willing to support this game, the problem is the direction and creative design has always been missing the mark and utilizing popular feedback has been very questionable. There has always been "a better path", but that path is void of any footprints. 

 

    The "fun factor" has to mean something. It is not all negative, of course not, but understanding the reasons why players want to play is vital to the survival of this game and any true "fun factor". That said, who knows, maybe someday without warning they just go and pull the plug. Players support this game by more than financial means, players spend their time, and although it absolutely is voluntary, the players make the game fun, not the bots, not the maps, not the 1,000 things that go wrong. As players we deserve better, but "better" will only happen when this game gets "better", and there is lots of room for "better". 

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau

[CorvusCorvax]

White_Widow18, on 26 March 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

I've learned that skilled players who ask for nerfs are almost always looking to their advantage, not actual game mechanics or balance. repeatedly and WG's stance seems to basically be 

 

Exactly.

 

Before the Pancake was nerfed, I sought them out in my Do-335.  I waited until they were engaged, then lit them up.  Even specialized Pancakes were not an issue when they had a tail and engine crit from a kilometer away.  Now I don't even pay them much attention.  I am faster, have longer-range guns, and I am confident in the capabilities of my aircraft.  Even in my Me-262, I was not afraid of them.  You have to use your head.  30mm 108s can really cook a Pancake. 

[Prenzlau]

nwlxn12, on 26 March 2019 - 01:46 PM, said:

 

That is a valid statement, but I would also say, that a highly skilled player in one class of plane should not have any more influence on the outcome of a game than another highly skilled person playing a different class of plane.  If one plane class can out perform another  with equally skilled players playing them, I would argue that there is a balance issue because at that point, one plane is allowing a player a greater opportunity in the match.

 

    Nwlxn12, what are you really trying to say? 

 

    What I am saying is that just like on a real battlefield, whether it is swords or machine guns, historically, skilled fighters and warriors rise to the top, they are called heroes for a reason. They carry the load and lead the charge. MM creates the mismatches which enables higher skilled players to have more of an impact upon battles. But should we blame the good players? 

 

    There are many ways to fix these problems, but there seems to be an actual resistance to it.

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau

[Stygian_Alchemist]

CorvusCorvax, on 26 March 2019 - 02:13 PM, said:

Exactly.

 

Before the Pancake was nerfed, I sought them out in my Do-335.  I waited until they were engaged, then lit them up.  Even specialized Pancakes were not an issue when they had a tail and engine crit from a kilometer away.  Now I don't even pay them much attention.  I am faster, have longer-range guns, and I am confident in the capabilities of my aircraft.  Even in my Me-262, I was not afraid of them.  You have to use your head.  30mm 108s can really cook a Pancake. 

 

The Pancake got over-nerfed to my view. I dunno what it was like -before- the nerf.. but at this point its a heavy I don't fear whatsoever. I see them as giant bullet catchers or free XP.

[CorvusCorvax]

White_Widow18, on 26 March 2019 - 08:17 PM, said:

 

The Pancake got over-nerfed to my view. I dunno what it was like -before- the nerf.. but at this point its a heavy I don't fear whatsoever. I see them as giant bullet catchers or free XP.

 

I can still fly mine like a heavy, and do heavy things.  But it's not a god in the Skies like it was before.  I can still shoot down RB-17s at will.  I can still crush Me-262s.  I will give B.V. P.203s something to think about, and if you're in an Arrow, I know where to take you and when.  But I have to think about it now.  Before, I could fly around like a Spitfire driver and just shoot stuff down....

[Prenzlau]

CorvusCorvax, on 26 March 2019 - 02:26 PM, said:

 

I can still fly mine like a heavy, and do heavy things.  But it's not a god in the Skies like it was before.  I can still shoot down RB-17s at will.  I can still crush Me-262s.  I will give B.V. P.203s something to think about, and if you're in an Arrow, I know where to take you and when.  But I have to think about it now.  Before, I could fly around like a Spitfire driver and just shoot stuff down....

 

    That's a lot of "Colonial Warrior Talk" my friend. I wonder how much of it is genuine Felgercarb!

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau

[CorvusCorvax]

Prenzlau, on 26 March 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

 

    That's a lot of "Colonial Warrior Talk" my friend. I wonder how much of it is genuine Felgercarb!

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau

 

I owned it before, and I still do.  I have played against owners before and since.

 

[shrug]

[mnbv_fockewulfe]

So if I ask for a nerf to HFs...
Ima noob?

[CorvusCorvax]

mnbv_fockewulfe, on 26 March 2019 - 09:49 PM, said:

So if I ask for a nerf to HFs...
Ima noob?

 

n00b

[mnbv_fockewulfe]

How about a Nerf to Bombers.

And Light Fighters.

And  buff to MRFs. 

---

[The_Wild_Weasel]

well playing against 1 human and the remainder bots.... all arguments are irrelevant............. and pointless... 

 

this game at one point had a chance...

 

W_W 

[losttwo]

The_Wild_Weasel, on 26 March 2019 - 06:30 PM, said:

well playing against 1 human and the remainder bots.... all arguments are irrelevant............. and pointless... 

 

this game at one point had a chance...

 

W_W 

 

TRUTH that bears the need of repeating.

[Prenzlau]

losttwo, on 27 March 2019 - 02:50 AM, said:

 

TRUTH that bears the need of repeating.

 

Truth that "bares" repeating! Ha! I corrected someone else! For all you grammar agitators. 

 

    Yes let us all be harbingers of doom, but that begs to question then, why are you here? Why are any of us here?

 

    We can burn effigies of the Warplanes icon and dance around the fire, but then what is the plan? Endurance? Survival? Hopeful expectations?

 

    If I opened up Dr. Prenzlau's Warplanes therapy for players, I'd be busy around the clock. People hang around for the positives and projected possibilities otherwise what is the point? (Which gives me an idea)

 

    Cheers!

 

    Prenzlau

[CorvusCorvax]

mnbv_fockewulfe, on 26 March 2019 - 10:31 PM, said:

And  buff to MRFs. 

---

Especially bot MRFs,  which are not nearly pesky enough right now.

Edited by CorvusCorvax, 27 March 2019 - 03:51 PM.

[nwlxn12]

Prenzlau, on 26 March 2019 - 02:16 PM, said:

 

    Nwlxn12, what are you really trying to say? 

 

    What I am saying is that just like on a real battlefield, whether it is swords or machine guns, historically, skilled fighters and warriors rise to the top, they are called heroes for a reason. They carry the load and lead the charge. MM creates the mismatches which enables higher skilled players to have more of an impact upon battles. But should we blame the good players? 

 

    There are many ways to fix these problems, but there seems to be an actual resistance to it.

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau

 

I am saying that if you remove the skill of a player and just take into account the planes ability, each plane class should have an equal ability to effect the outcome of a match in their own way.  If one class of plane can offer a skilled player more opportunity in a match than another class, that plane is over powered.  For example, two players on opposite teams, one flying a bomber and one flying a GA, if both players fly those planes at maximum effectiveness, they should cancel out each others performance, if that is not the case, the plane that offers one player more effect on the outcome either needs a nerf or the other plane needs a buff.  You stated in your original message about averages which I interpreted was weighted with player skill, which I agree with, and I just wanted to add that any class of plane should not be able to be skillfully played better than another class.