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

Commodore_Sailracer #21 Posted 09 October 2020 - 02:44 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 10081 battles
  • 278
  • [USMIL] USMIL
  • Member since:
    06-29-2019

That is a lot of thoughtful information and an interesting read.  Thanks for posting- it sounds like you are creating a business plan for starting a gaming company!  I'll learn to develop games and come help :great: 

 

I'll offer some of my thoughts below.  You can keep the following in mind while reading them.  I am a relatively new player- I have only played 2.0, so I have no comparison to previous versions and no baggage influencing my view of the game.  I got my gaming start on Ataris and grew up with Nintendo and Sega.  My gaming tastes now run towards sims (flying and racing primarily these days but Sim City, railroad tycoon, etc. in the past), but I could also spend hours on Mario or Street Fighter with friends.  I have not been able to get into any of the first person shooter games ever, so perhaps I am not the target demographic for game developers trying to hit homeruns, but rather those looking doubles or a solid single.

 

What I like about WOWP

  • Flying!
  • Easy to get started but complicated enough to keep it interesting
  • Community- forums, clans, flying with others on discord voice channels
  • Free to Play (and not really pay to win)  I would be willing to pay for a good game, but not on a subscription model.  I hate subscriptions and don't much care for micro transactions.  I'm usually ok with ads.
  • Lots of planes
  • Challenges and events to keep things interesting
  • Graphics- I am plenty happy with the graphics in the game as-is and don't need more at this time.

 

What could be improved in WOWP

  • Better joystick optimizations
    • Aiming seems to be a big disadvantage to joystick.  Any flying game should be optimized for joysticks (or at least not make them a disadvantage), just like any racing game should be optimized for racing wheels.  As a business, the game could be marketed with joystick hardware as there is a severe lack of competition and quality in the joystick market today!
    • Can't look around easily with a joystick.  Using a hat to look around works somewhat, but isn't the same as using a mouse with free look.
    • Limited directional control while in turret mode or bombing mode
  • Either stop making missions and materials require winning a battle or change the game dynamics so that an individual has more control over the outcome of a battle
    • Trying to overcome a player who has disconnected or dropped out (which is all too common) is very frustrating
    • Overcoming bad players on a team is also very frustrating  (What's up with bots that manage to finish a battle with 0 points!)
    • One tier per battle
  • Get rid of cost penalty for flying in training rooms
  • Clan battles
  • Flight physics- would like more realism (and less lag packet loss problems like bullet hit sparklies, but no damage)
  • Time sink.  I'm spending more time on this game (particularly with two events going on now) than my life can afford.  Maybe this is a problem with me rather than the game, though.  I still blame the game :trollface:

 

Edit to add:  VR support would be awesome and solve the joystick look around problems.  I'd go buy a VR headset for that.


Edited by Commodore_Sailracer, 09 October 2020 - 02:50 PM.


CorvusCorvax #22 Posted 09 October 2020 - 07:13 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 5298 battles
  • 6,262
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Glenn, I love your passion.

You do realize that you have spent more time on game development in this thread than WG has done on WoWP in the last 6 months?

As a cold-hearted realist, I don't think that even your most uncontroversial suggestions have a snowflake's chance in Hades of becoming reality.

But dreaming is free, and I would love it if you kept dreaming this dream.  So far, it's awesome.

GeorgePatton #23 Posted 09 October 2020 - 08:59 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1827 battles
  • 5,673
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Thank you all for the positive feedback and support! Obviously the big hurdle here is trying to get these ideas in front of a real decision maker at Wargaming. We've seen massive success with Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 - they gained over 1 million players in the first 2 weeks of release. That shows us that an aviation based video game is a successful project when done right.

 

Viktor tried to pass the failure of World of Warplanes' launch off as an evolutionary issue with the average person:

 

Block Quote

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.

 

Thank you for pulling that quote, FlakValley!

 

Let's break a couple points down there. Viktor says "only very specially trained crazy people become military pilots. We know that not everybody can be a pilot, let alone a military pilot."

 

It is true, not everyone can be a pilot - but this is one of the points where Viktor completely fails to acknowledge the mismanagement of the project. What video game audience does anyone here know that could watch a group of fighter jets do a low fly-by and not wish they could at least try doing it? Who has seen Top Gun and not wanted to try flying a jet? Why has Top Gun been so successful if it isn't for the action?

 

Here's the truth of the matter:

 

World of Warplanes failed because the managers thought the game needed to be slower and easier. They assumed that people couldn't understand what was going on in the game because it was too fast. This was fatal for the game because it didn't meet two important criteria. One, it didn't get rid of what was challenging players (3d environment) and two, it didn't up the excitement factor to keep players engaged with the game long enough to overcome the challenge of doing something different. In fact, it did quite the opposite by taking the excitement out of the game and leaving people with a choice to either learn about an unrealistic 3d combat environment and then have a boring game to play or just go find something more exciting to play.

 

You absolutely have to have enough excitement in an aviation based game to make it worth a player's time to learn the environment and that's something you're only going to accomplish by hiring a project manager who lives and breathes aviation. You have to have a team of developers who understand flight, understand the freedom of moving in three dimensions, and can find creative ways to bring those elements to a PC in a way that inspires players to keep coming back for more. It requires talented artists who can create breathtaking environments full of intricate detail. It requires a game engine that can support environments that extend well beyond the scope of the battle map in order to allow for a properly scaled altitude system (no compression).

 

The game should be fun to play without anything to shoot at. It should be thrilling just to explore the environments, see how low you can fly, learn new aerobatic tricks, and interact with your aircraft. A development team that can achieve success in these areas will see a massively successful combat arena because even if a player isn't successful in combat they'll still enjoy flying their plane which will inspire them to keep trying until they figure out something that works.

 

I'll close with a quick list of things that will create excitement:

  • Expansive views that accurately portray altitudes >1000m,
  • Volumetric clouds to provide important gameplay elements at mid to high altitudes (this also helps with creating a sense of scale),
  • A flight model that is fun to play even without shooting at each other,
  • Closer combat range,
  • Better roll rates, acceleration, and deceleration,
  • Developers that consistently engage with the community,

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

 

 

 

 


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


Four_Leaf_Tayback #24 Posted 09 October 2020 - 09:06 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 352 battles
  • 583
  • Member since:
    06-28-2017

Glenn,

 

I agree with some others here.  I think you should develop a business plan (it's practically done except for minor things like, ya know, financing and such) and create your own vision for a flight combat game.  

 

It's not like WG owns a patent on flight combat games.  

 

Find some people who like what you are proposing.  Get some free lance development work to do some simple mock ups.  Launch company.  Profit.  

 

Good luck!  


Saving my last two forum warnings since July 31, 2019.  

CorvusCorvax #25 Posted 09 October 2020 - 09:17 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 5298 battles
  • 6,262
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostFour_Leaf_Tayback, on 09 October 2020 - 09:06 PM, said:

Glenn,

 

I agree with some others here.  I think you should develop a business plan (it's practically done except for minor things like, ya know, financing and such) and create your own vision for a flight combat game.  

 

It's not like WG owns a patent on flight combat games.  

 

Find some people who like what you are proposing.  Get some free lance development work to do some simple mock ups.  Launch company.  Profit.  

 

Good luck!  

I would buy the game Glenn is pitching here.



GeorgePatton #26 Posted 09 October 2020 - 09:21 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1827 battles
  • 5,673
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Y'all got me thinking now (I'm kinda trolling at this point, but it might just be crazy enough...) what would happen if I pitched this to the WG Partnership people...

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


CorvusCorvax #27 Posted 09 October 2020 - 09:27 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 5298 battles
  • 6,262
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 09 October 2020 - 09:21 PM, said:

Y'all got me thinking now (I'm kinda trolling at this point, but it might just be crazy enough...) what would happen if I pitched this to the WG Partnership people...

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

They would, if you'll pardon the obvious pun, shoot you down immediately. 

 

This game makes them some small money with almost zero effort.  Any effort to license it would put them in the red on billable hours, and that's no bueno.

 

Bobby's suggestion that you brew your own is on-target.

 

WT has ground targets, and so will you.  Your idea of capture/defend the flag is a public domain concept.  All that remains is aircraft models and terrain.  All the test you have in your head.  Outsource the production to India, and move right to Step 4.



GeorgePatton #28 Posted 09 October 2020 - 09:35 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1827 battles
  • 5,673
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 October 2020 - 04:27 PM, said:

They would, if you'll pardon the obvious pun, shoot you down immediately. 

 

This game makes them some small money with almost zero effort.  Any effort to license it would put them in the red on billable hours, and that's no bueno.

 

Bobby's suggestion that you brew your own is on-target.

 

WT has ground targets, and so will you.  Your idea of capture/defend the flag is a public domain concept.  All that remains is aircraft models and terrain.  All the test you have in your head.  Outsource the production to India, and move right to Step 4.

 

Well guys, if I go silent for a while it's because I'm researching how to set up a good developer operation...

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


CorvusCorvax #29 Posted 09 October 2020 - 11:09 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 5298 battles
  • 6,262
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 09 October 2020 - 09:35 PM, said:

 

Well guys, if I go silent for a while it's because I'm researching how to set up a good developer operation...

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

If you need pre-alpha testing, let me know.  



the_better_tetrisgamer #30 Posted 10 October 2020 - 07:48 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4064 battles
  • 96
  • Member since:
    07-05-2015

View PostGeorgePatton, on 09 October 2020 - 09:35 PM, said:

 

Well guys, if I go silent for a while it's because I'm researching how to set up a good developer operation...

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

Nowadays you don't need an office building any more, just some hardware that you set up somewhere in the basement. The developers work - because of Corona - all in their home office anyway.


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.


WhoaBlackBetty #31 Posted 10 October 2020 - 12:32 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4953 battles
  • 3,192
  • [A_C_E] A_C_E
  • Member since:
    07-27-2014

Pre-Alpha excited tester ready and eager to assist.  Go for it Glenn!

 

WBB

 

BAMbaLAM: Also a buying customer.


Edited by WhoaBlackBetty, 10 October 2020 - 05:28 PM.

De-arse your bunks! Man the planes! The Fokkers are in sight! BAM ba LAMMM!
J311yfish: " 'Seal clubbing' and 'head hunting' are an inseparable part of the competitive nature of the game, and both provide a valuable service."
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by (guess who). View it anyway?

                                                                                                                     

       


losttwo #32 Posted 10 October 2020 - 01:21 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 11632 battles
  • 15,674
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

Or start your own.

People have started their own business for centuries

Gates

Job

Trump Sr Sr not the WH guy.

Whitey Bulgar..oh wait his put him in prison.

OHOHOHOH   One you might be able to identify with. FACEBOOK guy what his is nerd name.

 

Epic games has access to unreal engine.

 



mnbv_fockewulfe #33 Posted 11 October 2020 - 01:57 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 661 battles
  • 3,569
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Stop it george, you're making me nostalgic.

Unfortunately, this is a reality we will never live in!

Come play Aces High 3 with me instead.

 


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 11 October 2020 - 01:57 PM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


CorvusCorvax #34 Posted 11 October 2020 - 02:57 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 5298 battles
  • 6,262
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 11 October 2020 - 01:57 PM, said:

Stop it george, you're making me nostalgic.

Unfortunately, this is a reality we will never live in!

Come play Aces High 3 with me instead.

 


I think Glenn is onto something here.  Getting WG to make the fixes we want is impossible.  But migrating the WoWP community to a game that has a future, and responsive programming, and interactive PvE + PvP?  Totally doable.

Now, if he could bring back National Park...



mnbv_fockewulfe #35 Posted 12 October 2020 - 02:04 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 661 battles
  • 3,569
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 11 October 2020 - 02:57 PM, said:


I think Glenn is onto something here.  Getting WG to make the fixes we want is impossible.  But migrating the WoWP community to a game that has a future, and responsive programming, and interactive PvE + PvP?  Totally doable.

Now, if he could bring back National Park...


Well, that would be star wars squadrons.
If you're interested in flying nights on comms with me just send me a PM here on the forums.


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


WhoaBlackBetty #36 Posted 12 October 2020 - 02:07 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4953 battles
  • 3,192
  • [A_C_E] A_C_E
  • Member since:
    07-27-2014

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 11 October 2020 - 08:57 AM, said:


I think Glenn is onto something here.  Getting WG to make the fixes we want is impossible.  But migrating the WoWP community to a game that has a future, and responsive programming, and interactive PvE + PvP?  Totally doable.

Now, if he could bring back National Park...

 

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 11 October 2020 - 08:04 PM, said:


Well, that would be star wars squadrons.
If you're interested in flying nights on comms with me just send me a PM here on the forums.

 

Corvus, Glenn has absolutely excited me. I WANT HIM TO DO THIS.

 

mmbv, I am still in story mode, it is taxing my every ability, but am loving it. Maybe one day you and I can do some comming.

 

WBB

 

BamBaLam: Glenn, do you have a Discord or somewhere we can discuss this?  This may not be the best place.

 

WildChild: I have a Discord, heck anyone can have one, but I would be happy to make channels for you and this.


Edited by WhoaBlackBetty, 12 October 2020 - 02:12 AM.

De-arse your bunks! Man the planes! The Fokkers are in sight! BAM ba LAMMM!
J311yfish: " 'Seal clubbing' and 'head hunting' are an inseparable part of the competitive nature of the game, and both provide a valuable service."
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by (guess who). View it anyway?

                                                                                                                     

       


GeorgePatton #37 Posted 12 October 2020 - 02:35 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1827 battles
  • 5,673
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Hey Guys!

 

A quick update...

 

I've begun working on the physics model for the game in Unreal Engine 4. I'm currently working out some of the more complicated factors in getting stalls how I want them while also ensuring we don't get spins.

 

At this point I'm still waiting to hear back from Wargaming - I've asked them if they would consider hiring me as the project director with the goal of redeveloping the game, rebranding, and relaunching. Of course, if they decide they're happy with the mess they have now, I'll continue to develop my own project as I have time and resources available. If I haven't heard from Wargaming in the next week or two, I'll go ahead and send out invitations to my Discord server and we'll figure out where to go from there!

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


CorvusCorvax #38 Posted 13 October 2020 - 12:15 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 5298 battles
  • 6,262
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 12 October 2020 - 02:35 AM, said:

Hey Guys!

 

A quick update...

 

I've begun working on the physics model for the game in Unreal Engine 4. I'm currently working out some of the more complicated factors in getting stalls how I want them while also ensuring we don't get spins.

 

At this point I'm still waiting to hear back from Wargaming - I've asked them if they would consider hiring me as the project director with the goal of redeveloping the game, rebranding, and relaunching. Of course, if they decide they're happy with the mess they have now, I'll continue to develop my own project as I have time and resources available. If I haven't heard from Wargaming in the next week or two, I'll go ahead and send out invitations to my Discord server and we'll figure out where to go from there!

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


Looking forward to it, no matter which way it goes.

 



GeorgePatton #39 Posted 14 October 2020 - 08:04 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1827 battles
  • 5,673
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Why Altitude Compression Breaks the Game

 

In this post, I'm going to quickly talk about why altitude compression breaks the game and why it should obviously be removed. First of all, let's take a look at some diagrams that I like to call 'energy diagrams'. This first diagram is based on a 1:1 ratio between horizontal and vertical axis - there is no compression.

 

 

A quick show of my work:

 

a^2 + b^2 = c^2   ||   a = 1000, b = 1000   ||   c^2 = 2,000,000   ||   c = 1414.214

 

 

Now let's talk about a couple of the game mechanics that are dependent on distances:

  • Distance traveled by an aircraft,
  • Distance traveled by a projectile,
  • Energy balance,
  • Aircraft performance

 

So let's take a look at the same diagram but this time we'll add the altitude compression values:

 

 

Again, showing our work:

 

a^2 + b^2 = c^2   ||   a = 1000, b = 3000   ||   c^2 = 10,000,000   ||   c = 3162.278

 


 

So, where's the issue? The issue lies in two important places:

  1. Visual representation, and
  2. Which aspects of the game are actually affected by the altitude compression.

 

Let's start with the visual representation. Assume a pure X and Y axis 'graph' where X is the direction of movement and Y is altitude.

 

If you 'stack' two planes with a 3000m Y difference and a 0m X difference, the aircraft will appear to be 1000m apart visually. If you now place those two aircraft with a 3000m Y difference and a 1000m X difference, the distance between them (the hypotenuse of the triangle) will appear to be 1414m. 

 

So how does the game handle this?

 

In the game, altitude compression is not directly represented in the distances shown between aircraft and so it does not appear to have an influence on how we perceive the game. If you dig a little deeper, you'll notice that we're now on to point 2 of the list above.

 

Aircraft performance - and most importantly, energy balance are affected by the altitude compression system. Climbing 1000m in the game requires an 'energy trade' that's equivalent to climbing 3000m without altitude compression while only granting the advantage of 1000m in the combat environment. The issue here is that your range to target is still only 1000m which is obviously a bad situation. Going vertical will not allow you to effectively escape an opponent as an opponent who has the energy to chase you for 1 second can shoot at you and kill you before you can get beyond the range of his guns. 

 

Let's break that down:

 

Given:

  • Plane A has an airspeed of 10 m/s and a falloff of 1/m/s/m (one meter per second per meter vertical)
  • Plane B has an airspeed of 5 m/s and a falloff of 1/m/s/m
  • Plane A and Plane B begin at 0m vertical

 

If both aircraft pitch up to 90 degrees simultaneously, we will achieve the following separation based on time in seconds:

  1. 5m (Plane A @ 10m, Plane B @ 5m)
  2. 10m (Plane A @ 19m, Plane B @ 9m)
  3. 15m (Plane A @ 27m, Plane B @ 12m)
  4. 20m (Plane A @ 34m, Plane B @ 14m)
  5. 25m (Plane A @ 40m, Plane B @ 15m)
  6. 31m (Plane A @ 45m, Plane B @ 14m) (Notice Plane B has stalled and is falling)
  7. 37m (Plane A @ 49m, Plane B @ 12m)
  8. 43m (Plane A @ 52m, Plane B @ 9m)
  9. 49m (Plane A @ 54m, Plane B @ 5m)
  10. 55m (Plane A @ 55m, Plane B @ 0m)

 

Now let's add altitude compression into the equation:

 

  • Plane A has an airspeed of 10 m/s and a falloff of 3/m/s/m (one meter per second per meter vertical)
  • Plane B has an airspeed of 5 m/s and a falloff of 3/m/s/m
  • Plane A and Plane B begin at 0m vertical

 

If both aircraft pitch up to 90 degrees simultaneously, we will achieve the following separation based on time in seconds:

 

  1. 5m (Plane A @ 10m, Plane B @ 5m)
  2. 10m (Plane A @ 17m, Plane B @ 7m)
  3. 15m (Plane A @ 21m, Plane B @ 6m) (Plane B has stalled)
  4. 20m (Plane A @ 22m, Plane B @ 2m)

 

Notice that for 4 seconds, the range between aircraft remained the same between scenarios. One may ask why the altitude compression system would matter if the ranges are consistent between both scenarios. The problem we run into is when we look at the possible ranges in conjunction with gun ranges. In scenario 1, it required 6 seconds for Plane B to stall, while in scenario 2 it only required 3 seconds for Plane B to stall. Before we dig into gun ranges, there is also an important gameplay element that is affected by altitude compression as well - namely the halving of vertical time due to the altitude compression factor of 3. This means that players only have half of the time available to maneuver in the vertical plane, which is obviously a limiting factor in tactical choices.

 

Let's give Plane B some weapons and run some comparisons - let's say Plane B has a gun that can shoot 20m.

 

In scenario 1, Plane B has 4 seconds of firing time against Plane A.

In scenario 2, Plane B has 4 seconds of firing time against Plane A assuming controllability during stall.

 

So far so good? Well, let's now consider a horizontal aspect to the fight - those pesky triangles with the Pythagorean theorem...

 

 

Without altitude compression, if the green aircraft trades kinetic energy to potential energy, he reaches an altitude of 3000m. If his opponent is not able to climb, the closest the black aircraft will ever get to the green aircraft is 3000m. Let's say that the black aircraft has a gun range of 1000m. With a 1:1 altitude system the black aircraft will never be able to shoot the green aircraft.

 

With the altitude compression system, the orange aircraft must expend the same amount of energy as the green aircraft, however, the orange aircraft will only reach 1000m. This means that if the black aircraft can get right under the orange aircraft the black aircraft can shoot the orange aircraft. 

 

If we give the black aircraft the ability to climb, it is a much less steep climb to reach the orange aircraft than it is to reach the green aircraft and there is also a shorter distance to travel to get within range, which demonstrates that climbing is a terrible defensive choice in World of Warplanes.

 


 

I may come back and edit this post for clarity - it's definitely a bit of a brain dump right now. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. :D

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.






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

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users