Jump to content


GeorgePatton's Vision for World of Warplanes

Developers Gameplay Bombers Balance MM Suggestion

  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

GeorgePatton #1 Posted 08 October 2020 - 10:17 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Dear Developers and Community Members,

 

Most of you know me, I'm GeorgePatton - I've been a member of the World of Warplanes community since the very beginning of the project. I have participated in all stages of game development from 'Friends and Family Alpha' to the current game version. I've held numerous positions in external testing including Senior Alpha Test Veteran and Senior English-Speaking Supertest Coordinator for this project. I'm also a real-world pilot and avid air combat history student.

 

With my experience, I have - from the beginning, predicted the loss of players that has accompanied nearly every major update this game has had beginning with the decision to re-work the flight model due to 'a player' having too high of an impact on all of the battles he participated in, then the decision to increase RNG, the removal of three-player flights, the major changes to the base game mode, the loss of 'personality' for each aircraft, and the introduction of 'specialist' configurations. Of course, there have been positive changes to the game as well - I'm not saying there have not. I do believe, however, that this game has thrown away a lot of its potential from when it was named 'Most Anticipated Game' of 2012.

 

This thread will be a place where I promote my vision for World of Warplanes moving forward and my suggestions to bring back the excitement surrounding World of Warplanes, increasing player interaction and retention, and driving Wargaming's ROI for the project. I realize that most of this will probably fall on deaf ears, but I'm doing what I can to try to promote the game that I've loved to participate in over the last 10 years. I know not all of my opinions will be popular with everyone here, but I do want to say that I understand the FTP market, I understand the video games that are achieving massive popularity, and I have a very firm grasp on game design. That does not mean I know everything, or that all of my ideas would achieve perfect success in a stress-test, but I do know what made World of Warplanes popular in the beginning and what made it lose popularity. (Yes, I know that there was a failed attempt at creating buzz with World of Tanks streamers who gave negative reviews and I called that as a marketing mistake before it happened, but that was not the true cause of the game's underwhelming release...)

 

Anyway, enough of the introduction and on to my ideas! I'll be posting them here based on topics rather than as a long-winded single post. Topics I plan to cover include:

 

  • Updating the game engine,
  • Game Physics,
  • Weapon Design,
  • Game Modes,
  • Competitive Play and End-game Content,

 

Of course, that's not a definitive list of everything I'll talk about here, but those are the main topics I know I'm going to cover.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #2 Posted 08 October 2020 - 10:18 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Game Engine

 

It is no secret that the current Big World game engine is outdated and not well-suited to WoWP. I believe that a large part of the revitalization of WoWP is updating the game engine to a platform consistent with AAA titles and the advances we’ve seen in computing technologies. In recent years we’ve seen an explosion in the capabilities of both consoles and PC memory and GPUs - WoWP should remain on the cutting edge of minimum and recommended hardware.

 

Moving WoWP to a state-of-the-art game engine such as Unreal Engine 5 would allow greater control of game physics, larger and more detailed environments, spacial sound design, realistic real-time lighting, much more immersive effects, and an overall more immersive environment for our players. When WoWP was announced in 2011, many players were still operating systems built in the 2000’s. We are now nearly a decade past the initial announcement of the game and still running a game that was designed for machines built in the past two decades. Wargaming should focus resources on the larger market - players who are willing to invest their money into their systems, and thus more likely to spend money on the games they built or purchased those systems to play.

 

Of course, no player should be deliberately left behind, and platforms like Unreal 5 come with built-in optimization to adjust the processing power required to a suitable level for most hardware released over the last 10 years.

 

We've also heard that the current development team (most, if not all of whom have been onboarded well after the game's release) are having a hard time understanding the game's code. Rebuilding World of Warplanes on a modern platform would enable the game to be designed in a more streamlined fashion consistent with current industry standards and in a way that future developers will be able to easily understand and work with.

 


Edited by GeorgePatton, 08 October 2020 - 10:33 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #3 Posted 08 October 2020 - 10:18 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Game Physics

 

When WoWP was in early testing, the game saw massive success. We often saw thousands of testers playing the game simultaneously and the game was given 2012’s ‘Most Anticipated Game’ award. In the years following, WoWP rapidly lost popularity with many former players citing the flight physics as being counter-intuitive and game breaking.

 

A return to a physics model based more firmly in real-world physics would bring the game to a point where players are more easily able to understand the reactions of their aircraft and develop offensive and defensive maneuvering strategies to combat each other. I believe in the original vision for WoWP - ‘easy to learn, difficult to master’ and the associated design philosophy of a ‘sim-cade where you experience all of the thrills of flight without having to manage the propellor and fuel mixture’. 

 

In keeping with this design vision, I believe that WoWP should follow the same design philosophy as many of the great aviation-based games have - Microsoft Flight Simulator (easy mode), Fighter Ace II & III (arcade mode), and many others. I do not believe that WoWP’s target demographic should be true ‘flight simmers’ as that would place WoWP firmly into a very specialized niche. WoWP should be easy to access and fairly balanced for both M/KB users and Joystick users as we’ve previously seen in early game builds.

 

While I believe respecting the historical capabilities of aircraft where known is important, I don’t support balancing aircraft performance based entirely on historical numbers. Gameplay is important and in a virtual setting where pilots don’t feel the G’s and effects of the air around them I believe that it is important to increase roll rates and turn speeds to achieve exciting combat interaction.

 

Stalls should be replicated more realistically - particularly in the ‘break point’ where an aircraft has a sharp nose-down movement as airflow is separated from the wing causing a loss of lift. The current lazy movement we experience is both unpredictable and extremely dangerous when performed during combat. Bringing back a firm break in stalls would increase strategies available to players who are out-classed by faster aircraft performing ‘boom and zoom’ attacks as a player in a slower aircraft could chase the attacker a little longer without fear of being a balloon in the sights of the ‘boom and zoom’ player as they swing around.

 

I agree with the original game design philosophy regarding spins - they are difficult for non-pilots to understand, and while recovery techniques are easy to learn, recovery for M/KB users would be much more difficult than for joystick players which could result in an unfair advantage and thus they should not be modeled. 

 

Overall, I suggest a return to physics which closely resembles the original game physics.

 


Edited by GeorgePatton, 08 October 2020 - 10:43 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #4 Posted 08 October 2020 - 10:19 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Weapon Design

 

A large piece of my overhaul proposal comprises a re-working of the current ‘course’ or main weapons platforms of the aircraft. Currently each aircraft has a base weapon DPS which is modified by both ammunition type and RNG in the form of modifiers to damage dealt, aim point correction, and dispersion.

 

I propose a more customizable system in which RNG is based on three factors:

 

  1. A slider which allows the player to move the ‘convergence point’ of the weapons in relation to their aircraft between 100m and 600m with a +/- 25m ‘maximum damage’ window,
  2. A ‘falloff’ of weapon damage outside of the ‘maximum damage’ window,
  3. A ‘falloff’ of weapon damage based on range and weapon caliber.

 

This system would allow each player to customize their aircraft to fit their particular play style. Players who enjoy maintaining distance from their opponents could set their weapon convergence point to 600m and would achieve their optimal damage output between 575m and 625m, while players who prefer to get ‘up close and personal’ with their opponents (and have a larger target) could set their convergence point to 100m and achieve optimal performance at ranges from 75m to 125m. 

 

Damage outside of the convergence window would fall off to reflect the dispersion of projectiles we see in the real world which will also increase the diversity of play styles.

 

Weapon damage output would be better for players who prefer close combat which inherently carries more risk, while players who prefer to play from a distance will require more ‘time on target’ to deal the same amount of damage. The hidden benefit of drawing players closer together by increasing damage output at closer ranges is that it will increase the excitement of virtual air combat as aggressive maneuvering will become more effective at avoiding an opponent’s attacks.

 

 Of course, weapons mounted in the nose and/or hub of the aircraft would be subject only to the falloff of weapon range. This will also increase the diversity of strategies employed by players, especially in attacks against larger, more well-armored opponents.

 

See this video for relevant historical gun camera footage:

 


Edited by GeorgePatton, 08 October 2020 - 10:29 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #5 Posted 08 October 2020 - 10:19 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Base Game Mode

 

Objectives:

  • Defend base
  • Destroy opposing base
  • Defeat incoming armored vehicles
  • Defend supply trains
  • Destroy supply trains

 

Defend Base:

 

The base is the main objective of the game - destroying targets on the opposing base will remove points from the opposing team. When a team’s point meter reaches 0, the battle is over.

 

Armored vehicles:

 

Armored vehicles will destroy targets on the base as well as engage opposing armored vehicles that are encountered. Ping opposing armor units to direct the nearest friendly unit to attempt to engage them! Assist your team by destroying armored units to allow your units to break through! 

 

Supply Trains:

 

Supply trains will resupply the base, repairing damaged targets. Every third train will be a ‘super train’ which carries enough supplies to restore a destroyed target on the base. Destroying opposing trains is vital to ensuring the continued attrition of the opposing base. Defending your team’s supply trains is important to maximize your team’s advantage. In the case of trains reaching undamaged bases, supplies will be stockpiled and targets repaired as materials are available later in the match.

 

When the supply trains arrive and targets are restored, a corresponding increase will be seen in the team’s point meter.

 

Team Composition:

 

Each team will consist of 15 players.

 

2 Strategic Bombers

3 Attack Aircraft

3 Heavy Fighters

7 Fighters

 

 

Aircraft Classification:

 

Strategic Bombers - aircraft currently listed as bombers in WoWP 2.0.

Attack Aircraft - aircraft currently listed as attack aircraft in WoWP 2.0.

Heavy Fighters - aircraft currently listed as heavy fighters in WoWP 2.0.

Fighters - aircraft currently listed as light and multi-role fighters in WoWP 2.0.

 

Why the change in fighters:

 

In order to maintain a greater connection to the historic development of air combat, I believe it is important to depict aircraft with weapons and ordinance in accordance with historical evidence. Many aircraft, such as the P-51 series were able to carry external ordinance in addition to the internally mounted weapons which we currently see in WoWP. I believe it would increase player satisfaction and general gameplay variety if players were given the option to mount external ordinance on aircraft which were historically capable of carrying such ordinance. In accordance with this change, external munitions and hard points should affect the aircraft’s performance with relevant changes being made to the aircraft’s performance when ordinance is released as we’ve seen in previous versions of WoWP.

 

 

General Expected Gameplay:

 

The expected gameplay results from this game mode would be a rock-paper-scissors of sorts where Strategic Bombers attack the base while heavies attack the bombers to defend the base. Attack aircraft hunt armored units and trains with assistance from ordinance-carrying fighters, while fighters without ordinance (or after expending ordinance) will join the attack against the base by hunting heavies and defending friendlies. As the balance of points between teams widens, one team will be forced to shift into a defensive position where all assets are focused on defeating incoming opposing aircraft and armored units. Thus, defending the trains and ensuring that they reach their destinations early in the game is of utmost importance, giving a high importance to attack aircraft and creating a vital role for fighters equipped with external ordinance. Strategic importance will be placed on escorting armored units across the map which will require teamwork between attack pilots and fighters as they will be intercepted by opposing forces on their way. Effective management of armored units will ensure that opposing armor is held up while your team’s attack pilots pick them off while being covered by your friendly fighters. A team that coordinates well and ensures the safe arrival of their trains in the early stages of the battle will be able to ‘tank damage’ from the strategic bombers while their heavies participate in the quick destruction of opposing attack aircraft intent on destroying trains and armored units.

 

Overall, I believe that this game mode would increase the balance between aircraft types and give both attack aircraft and strategic bombers a better place in the overall gameplay. 

 

I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this game mode and possible improvements. This is obviously a rather abbreviated description of the game mode and would require input and testing from a larger demographic to ensure proper playability.


Edited by GeorgePatton, 08 October 2020 - 11:08 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #6 Posted 08 October 2020 - 10:20 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011
-Placeholder-

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


losttwo #7 Posted 08 October 2020 - 11:29 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 9356 battles
  • 14,916
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

And at least 3 man flights. God, I miss those.

 



GeorgePatton #8 Posted 08 October 2020 - 11:37 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postlosttwo, on 08 October 2020 - 06:29 PM, said:

And at least 3 man flights. God, I miss those.

 


Yes! That's definitely something I would want to bring back as well! I'll put more on that in a post about general stuff.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #9 Posted 09 October 2020 - 12:32 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

What Makes Games Like 'Modern Warfare' Massively Popular

 

Let's talk a little bit about what makes games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare so popular and how we could bring some of those elements into an air combat video game.

 

First of all, Modern Warfare has a very intuitive, familiar feeling. Players are not forced to try to understand complex concepts and also learn an entire new world at the same time. For the most part, we all know how to walk, run, jump, and hold a basic weapon. We understand that when we point the weapon at something and shoot, we're going to hit what we're aiming at with maybe a little bit of ballistic drop at the ranges we're shooting in Modern Warfare. It feels familiar because it's a virtual representation of things we do every day or have seen in movies and TV.

 

One of the other main appeals of games like Modern Warfare is the fast-paced action. From the minute you drop into a game, you're only seconds away from opposing players and you quickly tangle with them in reflex-based gunfights. It's exciting. It gets your adrenaline pumping. It's close and a small mistake can mean the difference between success and failure.

 

Now consider World of Warplanes:

 

Flying a plane and operating in a 3d environment where you can move between the x, y, and z axis almost freely is not something the average person is familiar with. Sure, we've all seen movies like Top Gun (the new one for many of us... don't hate on the younger generation!) and Dunkirk, but it's not something that can be easily understood just from watching movies. 

 

The other drawback to World of Warplanes is that the action is not 'in your face'. Many kills are scored from well beyond 400m against targets which at that range can't really evade. Players are often shot down before they can even realize what's happening (which is consistent with real-world historical air combat) which leaves them feeling frustrated and like they haven't learned anything.

 

So how can we implement those exciting aspects of Modern Warfare in an air combat video game?

 

The first step is to identify what makes flight so different compared to most of our regular experiences. Here's a quick list of differences that people I've had conversations with don't immediately recognize about flight:

 

  1. The average person does not understand aircraft stalls - they think that if you stall the airplane you're going to crash. In reality, we stall aircraft quite regularly both in training and whenever we land the aircraft. Stalls are not dangerous if you understand them and understand how to avoid them in circumstances where you can't recover from them before hitting into something.
  2. The average person does not think in three dimensions. Most people believe that they do because the objects they see around them are three-dimensional, but in reality the average person views the world as two-dimensional. You want to get from point A to point B so you decide on your path much like the directions on Google Maps. You're not thinking about every little hill and bump. You imagine it as essentially a flat surface with obstacles between that you have to go around.
  3. The average person does not understand physics in the vertical axis at an intuitive level. Sure, we all know that 'what goes up must come down' but that's about the extent of most people's thought on the vertical axis.
  4. Airplanes have limitations based on weight, lift vector, propeller efficiency, and density altitude.

 

When you take those four basic things and throw someone into an environment where they have to learn how to intuitively understand them, you're going to experience some problems with demographic retention.

 

In order to attract and retain players, World of Warplanes must present an easy to understand version of all of those factors which is 'easy to learn but hard to master'. People shouldn't feel like they're fighting to understand what they're doing, but there should still be depth that allows them to develop tactics and strategies as they gain a stronger grasp on aviation as presented in the game. If you make it too simple, there's nothing to do to avoid being shot down - much like we see now. If you make it too realistic, you lose 7/8 of your potential demographic. 

 

I believe that a combination of well-executed educational content development (video tutorials), simple and consistent physics (especially in stalls), and a dedicated community management team can work together to maximize player retention. Players need to have easy access to information about the three-dimensional physics of flight - especially relating to the 'tactical egg' and other basic concepts which are taught during entry level air combat training. Most of you have probably seen my detailed guides relating specifically to this topic. Unfortunately they've been archived in forum reorganizations and I'm well over my limit for placing images in forum posts so I have not been able to update them - which again goes back to dedicated community management.

 

Once a player is able to understand the behavior of an aircraft in three-dimensions - how the aircraft will have a tighter turn radius at the top of a loop, how airspeed increases turn radius, etc they will be able to begin to visualize the combat environment and strategize their maneuvers to take advantage of the physics. Having a simplified yet realistic representation of real-world physics will enable the player to 'climatize' to the new environment without frustration due to unexpected and unrealistic results we often see in World of Warplanes. This is where 'easy to learn, difficult to master' really comes in.

 

During early testing, this was the environment of World of Warplanes. For some reason, the developers did not like the success that a certain player was having in the game due to his in-depth knowledge of air combat tactics and understanding of the 3d environment and so they decided to change the physics. They lost more than half of their player base when they implemented this decision. The development team then decided that an emphasis should be placed on the x and y axis in order to appeal to what they termed the 'average CoD player'. They lost another large portion of their player base. Altitude compression was increased from a factor of about 1.5x to at least 3x which resulted in weird things happening with altitude differences compared to gun ranges. Wargaming decided to compensate for this by introducing 'altitude bands' which were even more disastrous and drove away still more players. As each of these changes were made, World of Warplanes moved further and further from a basis in reality and more into the realm of sci-fi. The developers made wrong turns at almost every possible decision point which led to the removal of three-player flights, the almost complete removal of aircraft 'personality', and eventually the introduction of completely imbalanced aircraft in futile attempts to ramp up interest in the game through quantity rather than quality.

 

I digress.

 

On the topic of increased excitement, one of the most important changes would be to draw combat to closer ranges. You shouldn't be able to kill another player from 1000+ meters with your guns. A player should have a fair chance of avoiding your attacks. Aircraft should have the ability to force overshoots on opponents who are not giving 100% of their attention to the chase. 

 

How can we achieve this?

 

  1. See my post on weapons - this will draw combat closer,
  2. Increase roll rates across the board to allow for quick reversals and rolling displacements,
  3. Increase the energy loss when deploying flaps and airbrakes in order to force overshoots (which will now be much easier as most combat will be close-range),
  4. Increase aircraft acceleration so that slowing down is not a death sentence,
  5. Increase airspeed on most mid-tier aircraft,
  6. Create environments with more obstacles which can be flown through, around, and over,
  7. Create a volumetric cloud system which will create 3d clouds that can be flown into.

 

These changes would immediately make the game more reflex-based like Modern Warfare while also increasing the number of tactics available for use by players. Point 7 in particular would open up a new world of possibilities in the game and reflect a vital part of era-specific air combat that we don't currently see in the game. It is well documented that pilots who found themselves in tough situations would dive for the nearest cloud and lose their opponent. Without large volumetric clouds in the game, this is something that just is not possible in the current game environment.

 


 

While this is obviously not an exhaustive list of changes that would 'fix' the game, it's certainly a good place to start in terms of broadening the appeal of World of Warplanes and engaging a larger demographic.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


Edited by GeorgePatton, 09 October 2020 - 12:37 AM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #10 Posted 09 October 2020 - 01:45 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Things World of Warplanes Has Right

 

I don't want this whole thread to feel like one big criticism of World of Warplanes and the development teams to this point - while there are definitely many mistakes that have been made, I thought I would highlight some of the things that they've gotten right and I would want to carry over to a rebuilt version of World of Warplanes.

 

  • Mouse/Keyboard Controls - they're easy to understand, precise, and just generally have a good feel. The way that the controls interact with the game create a mostly intuitive interface that is both powerful and unobtrusive to the gameplay experience.
  • Tech Trees - the developers did a good job researching historical aircraft and creating tech trees that are filled with well-known aircraft. Many of the aircraft represented in the game and to be licensed and that was not an easy achievement, so props to them! (pun intended)
  • Aircraft modeling - the aircraft are very well modeled and this isn't a surprise as Persha has been known for their outstanding attention to detail in 3d modeling. The aircraft texturing and damage modeling would need a rework when placed in a modern game engine, but other than that I have no critiques for the work they've done! (It's not really a critique either, just something that would need to be done to take advantage of the tools developed since the game was released)
  • UI - the current UI is easy to understand and navigate. It is well executed and in keeping with the design of World of Tanks and World of Warships. It will require an update for 4K compatibility, but other than that I think it's just about perfect.
  • Respawns/Squall Line - this was definitely a good change that came to the game. I know many players would become frustrated when they were shot down early in the match and had to wait around for their aircraft to become available again. The squall line near the end of the match was a good touch as it maintained that connection to the original game mode where once you died you were dead for good and it also allows for another method of victory.
  • Microtransactions - premium ammo and consumables are in keeping with other Wargaming titles. With a small tweak to cost, I think these are a beneficial way of monetizing a FTP title without offering a 'Pay to Win' model.
  • Equipment - extra layers of customizability are always good! I think some of the equipment went a little too far in terms of how it stacks with crew skills and effects aircraft performance, but overall the idea is positive and mostly well-executed.

 

I'm not going to post everything positive in one post as I want to spread some appreciation throughout the rest of my ramblings.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


Captain_Underpants53 #11 Posted 09 October 2020 - 02:31 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 32491 battles
  • 5,290
  • [USMIL] USMIL
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017
I would add that the UI could use an airspeed indicator while in bombing mode (like in real life).
MSgt, USAF, (ret)

Captain_Underpants53 #12 Posted 09 October 2020 - 03:59 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 32491 battles
  • 5,290
  • [USMIL] USMIL
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

The more I think about these tweaks, the better I like them  But, except for one, I see them as just tweaks more or less important.

 

The one I see as vital is switching to another game engine.  I don't have the 'puter chops to really know but I am assuming that a lot of the bugs would disappear, the FPS would go up, etc.  Or am I wrong?

 

:unsure:


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

GeorgePatton #13 Posted 09 October 2020 - 05:08 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 08 October 2020 - 10:59 PM, said:

The more I think about these tweaks, the better I like them  But, except for one, I see them as just tweaks more or less important.

 

The one I see as vital is switching to another game engine.  I don't have the 'puter chops to really know but I am assuming that a lot of the bugs would disappear, the FPS would go up, etc.  Or am I wrong?

 

:unsure:


In order to switch game engines, the game would require a complete redevelopment. While that is obviously a pretty big endeavor, I believe that it is necessary if WoWP is going to last more than a year or so from today. As hardware continues to become more powerful and software is being run on newer and better architecture, the old Big World engine is not receiving updates to keep up. From what I've heard, there aren't many people at WG who know the engine well enough to understand the code that's already present in WoWP which is contributing to bugs in each consecutive update.

 

I suggest Unreal because I have used it myself and know many of its capabilities as well as how easy it is to work with level design and also because Wargaming has begun using Unreal for several other projects which means they have already built a relationship with Epic Games. With the absolutely stunning facelift that Warplanes would receive as part of redevelopment, it would quite easily be pushed to the forefront of air combat video games which would obviously be good for business at Wargaming.

 

I really don't see Warplanes being worth the investment of resources if Wargaming doesn't port it to a more modern game engine. Development costs will continue to increase as fewer developers have a deep knowledge of the engine and we've already seen that updates are stressing the limits of the engine's design.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


Captain_Underpants53 #14 Posted 09 October 2020 - 05:18 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 32491 battles
  • 5,290
  • [USMIL] USMIL
  • Member since:
    04-17-2017

View PostGeorgePatton, on 09 October 2020 - 12:08 AM, said:


In order to switch game engines, the game would require a complete redevelopment. While that is obviously a pretty big endeavor, I believe that it is necessary if WoWP is going to last more than a year or so from today. As hardware continues to become more powerful and software is being run on newer and better architecture, the old Big World engine is not receiving updates to keep up. From what I've heard, there aren't many people at WG who know the engine well enough to understand the code that's already present in WoWP which is contributing to bugs in each consecutive update.

 

I suggest Unreal because I have used it myself and know many of its capabilities as well as how easy it is to work with level design and also because Wargaming has begun using Unreal for several other projects which means they have already built a relationship with Epic Games. With the absolutely stunning facelift that Warplanes would receive as part of redevelopment, it would quite easily be pushed to the forefront of air combat video games which would obviously be good for business at Wargaming.

 

I really don't see Warplanes being worth the investment of resources if Wargaming doesn't port it to a more modern game engine. Development costs will continue to increase as fewer developers have a deep knowledge of the engine and we've already seen that updates are stressing the limits of the engine's design.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

This is probably all pie-in-the-sky but we can always hope.

 

:medal:


MSgt, USAF, (ret)

GeorgePatton #15 Posted 09 October 2020 - 05:32 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostCaptain_Underpants53, on 09 October 2020 - 12:18 AM, said:

This is probably all pie-in-the-sky but we can always hope.

 

:medal:


Very true, unfortunately. 

 

On the topic of level design, I know from experience that with properly developed modular assets a single level designer should have no issues with creating at least one new game environment per month. This assumes a proper working knowledge of procedural painting and spline asset creation. Unreal makes all of this extremely easy to learn and understand (I taught myself using YouTube tutorials in about a week and achieved good results with very limited assets). Being able to push new maps every month would be a huge draw to the game as everything would be kept fresh.

 

Since it's pretty late and I'm in a creative mood...

 

Imagine a special event based on the Battle of Britain where you have 15 players on one team flying British aircraft against 45 players on the other team flying German bombers and fighters. The British players could have 4 respawns each, while the Germans would have 2 each. Each building in London would have a point value and the objective for the British is to destroy all of the German planes before they can destroy too much of London, while obviously the German objective would be to score a number of points by destroying buildings. What a way to honor history and promote the game at the same time!

 

Of course, there would also be opportunities for bombing Berlin, the oil fields at Ploesti, Tokyo, etc. This could be absolutely amazing!

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


yyt_hero #16 Posted 09 October 2020 - 09:28 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 12123 battles
  • 342
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
It will never happen, great Ideas but the game Developers  don't care they did once before to get the game up and running and like you said they won the the award in 2012.  Sure they fix things here and there or mess with stuff but as far as fixing the main problems they are not worried about that or they would have at least listened to you guys and others on here before and after the updates to the next level. Sad to say it , It is what it is and they must have enough players to make a go of it.  They would fix alot of things if it was hurting there pockets and they do know they have hard core wowp fan's of the game that will stick with them threw the thick and thins of the game. I guess that's what they call us...Hard Core!   lol

FlakValleyExpress #17 Posted 09 October 2020 - 12:08 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 64 battles
  • 4,187
  • Member since:
    02-09-2012

GeorgePatton I applaud your efforts. However, I am not sure there will be any effort done by WG for WoWP. I say this because of what I read by CEO of Wargaming.

 

Block Quote

August 16, 2020

GamesBeat: What made World of Warships succeed while World of Warplanes didn’t?

 

Kislyi: I don’t think it’s far from the truth to say that the three-dimensional fighting and the very high speed of the game — as humans, we’re not made for flight. We don’t have the tools. Our eyes and brains aren’t engineered by Mother Nature, through evolution, for flying and that kind of very fast movement and rapid turning and shooting. Moving on a 2D plane, with a little bit of elevation, jumping and hiding and shooting, we’re good at that, going back to our time in the jungle, our time on the savannah.

 

World War II dogfights with a keyboard and mouse — it’s not something that everyone enjoys. Only very specially trained crazy people become military pilots. We know that not everybody can be a pilot, let alone a military pilot.

 

In the end, it didn’t work out. I could think of more elegant reasoning. I might even say we had bad luck. But we just didn’t manage — somehow we couldn’t pull off a hobby-style dogfighting game. In terms of presentation and historical accuracy, it was the same as World of Tanks. We had iconic airplanes, iconic pilots, iconic battles. We had the Messerschmitts and Mustangs and Spitfires. But as a computer game, where you want to spend 10 minutes to let off steam and have fun, though, the amount of effort your brain had to make was more than the fun you got back. We realized we hadn’t pulled it off.

 

Obviously, the game is still running. We don’t promote it and push it and market it on every lamppost, but there are a couple of hundred thousand people who play it, the diehards. We’re not shutting it down. It’s slightly profitable. It’s not through the roof. It used to actually burn money, but we managed to streamline and optimize the team and our approach so that those players who love the game can still play it. We’re just not pushing it aggressively.

 

Source: Venture Beat news 

 

WoWP is in a coma and on life support. OP your are right. This game could succeed if anyone still put forward the effort. I wish for a turn around for WoWP.


1.X WoWP veteran - Airborne Scout - Class of 1.0 - Non-Russian

Vae victis

Update 2.0 - It's not a bug, it's a feature- Let's be Professional, Fix it! - Be the gold standard for MMO warplanes. Ditch the Zero and get with a Hero WoWP - Best troll game in 2018/2019

"Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in."

 


cundalini_ #18 Posted 09 October 2020 - 12:21 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 129 battles
  • 72
  • Member since:
    08-25-2020

View PostGeorgePatton, on 08 October 2020 - 07:32 PM, said:

From the minute you drop into a game, you're only seconds away from opposing players and you quickly tangle with them in reflex-based gunfights. It's exciting. It gets your adrenaline pumping. It's close and a small mistake can mean the difference between success and failure.

 

This is what 1.x was with no respawns and it's flight model.  This 2.duh has never provided the same level of adrenaline or action.  Or maybe I'm mellowing as I get older and it takes more to get me excited?



cundalini_ #19 Posted 09 October 2020 - 12:28 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 129 battles
  • 72
  • Member since:
    08-25-2020
 

Block Quote

 Obviously, the game is still running. We don’t promote it and push it and market it on every lamppost, but there are a couple of hundred thousand people who play it, the diehards. We’re not shutting it down. It’s slightly profitable. It’s not through the roof. It used to actually burn money, but we managed to streamline and optimize the team and our approach so that those players who love the game can still play it. We’re just not pushing it aggressively.

 

Ahhh..So this is why no NA CM, just Blindfold doing posts, moderation, etc...only pay one person to do everything...that wacky Kislyi.  I'm sad he never came here to explain these thoughts when I asked for that back in 2015...

 

Does that article explain why ships Doubloons and Free XP has never been integrated with Tonks like they intimated early on?  Suppose I could read the rubbish myself...

edit: no...nothing about common economy between all three.


Edited by cundalini_, 09 October 2020 - 12:46 PM.


the_better_tetrisgamer #20 Posted 09 October 2020 - 12:59 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3202 battles
  • 35
  • [B_C_S] B_C_S
  • Member since:
    07-05-2015

Very good forum post - George !!! :medal:
I have respect for the well-described improvements, which would certainly do this game good.
However, in my opinion these changes are more like a new video game than an upgrade of the existing WoWp.
They are certainly not just visions, but concepts that are quite promising considering the possibilities in the game world today.
In my estimation, the currently available WG developers are overstrained with this - this already starts with the migration of the existing game to a modern server platform.


As Yoda would say: "A long way to become a Jedi it is, but a good Padawan to be is helpful."

Everybody only sees what I do wrong, but nobody wants to see it if I have done something right for once.






Also tagged with Developers, Gameplay, Bombers, Balance, MM, Suggestion

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users