82 replies to this topic

[jakub_czyli_ja]

BravelyRanAway, on 05 May 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

Even I knew he was referring to WoT not WoWP's....he even explained that in his next post.

OK, so why WoWP isn't?

 

BravelyRanAway, on 05 May 2018 - 09:23 AM, said:

You misunderstand....players can and do sit in a bush/camp base or redline snipe and hit stuff and they believe they are contributing or they can play arty ans just sit and click. These things cannot be done in WoWP's.

Get a bomber, climb really high, and as long, as there is no +1MM nor exceptionally focused players, you can just click.

It ain't the good way, is more narrow than in WoT (because it applies to only one class), but such possibility is present.

Still doesn't work.

[BravelyRanAway]

jakub_czyli_ja, on 05 May 2018 - 09:40 AM, said:

Get a bomber, climb really high, and as long, as there is no +1MM nor exceptionally focused players, you can just click.

Nope....you still have to concentrate moving your bomber on to the target using WASD......in WoT you can just sit in one spot and click on target with the mouse. Not saying it the correct way to play....but many do it and will sit in the one spot for the entire game, even when enemy tanks are coming for them.

[Horcan]

BravelyRanAway, on 05 May 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

Nope....you still have to concentrate moving your bomber on to the target using WASD......in WoT you can just sit in one spot and click on target with the mouse. Not saying it the correct way to play....but many do it and will sit in the one spot for the entire game, even when enemy tanks are coming for them.

 

If you do that in WoT youre probably one of those tomatoes with 0.05 kill ratio and 43% WR. If you shoot your artillery and not move the next second youre toasted 2 seconds later by counter fire. At least tier 6+.

[jakub_czyli_ja]

Horcan, on 05 May 2018 - 09:51 AM, said:

If you do that in WoT youre probably one of those tomatoes with 0.05 kill ratio and 43% WR. If you shoot your artillery and not move the next second youre toasted 2 seconds later by counter fire. At least tier 6+.

Did a lot of Progetto grind on arty, and been countered very few times.

 

I guess counterbattery secret died with a lot of experienced players remembering artyparties leaving.

[BravelyRanAway]

Horcan, on 05 May 2018 - 09:51 AM, said:

 

If you do that in WoT youre probably one of those tomatoes with 0.05 kill ratio and 43% WR. If you shoot your artillery and not move the next second youre toasted 2 seconds later by counter fire. At least tier 6+.

And yet, you know players do it time after time for hundreds, even thousands of games because they think they are doing something....having fun is subjective.

[eekeeboo]

 

Prepare yourselves! Wall of text is coming! I don't mind if this doesn't get read, I don't mind if those i've replied to don't read either. This is a faint attempt to counter the constant swing of negativity and pestering from a singular perspective on 2.0. This is the other side of the perspective and offering a contrasting opinion from someone who liked 1.9 and still likes and enjoys 2.0. 

 

1) Paradox 1: 2.0 fans believe, all tactics and self skills in 1.9 still are possible and useful in 2.0... so if we suppose they are right .... WG just added some new strange rules of capturing bases, some new complex rules which are not clear for everybody.

 

Spoiler

- The capturing rules are actually pretty simplistic and easy to understand (in my opinion). For those who were not as fortunate to find them as intuitive the level of available information to explain it, even on the day of release for 2.0 was quite a lot and readily available in-game by pressing F1. The only thing missing was a tutorial perhaps for really new players to walk them through things. 

 

2) now in 2.0 the new players has one more problem than 1.9! they needed to learn tactics and know planes specs and behaviors and they need to know new rules ( rules which are really unfair). it harder for them to know behaviors of different planes( in 1.9 they could compare the speed,alt,HP,firepower.. etc) in the lists and when they locked on opposite plane. now they can't. thy have to learn it in hangar or on tech tree page...

 

Spoiler

- The plane behaviours are now more uniform and less drastically different, for example the 209A and the Ta 152. The different methods to handle the planes you required before are no longer as harsh or punishing. As you get up the tiers you need to learn those plane behaviours true, but at tier 7-8 the penalty for not learning is not as harsh still as it used to be at tier 4 (110 and 109b spring to mind). Furthermore the ability to "compare aircraft" even when it was in game was never 100% accurate, not just because of the non-real time comparisons and the effects of equipment and pilot skills. The stats were compared over-all, not on an individual basis, when you had planes that had higher maneuverability on stats, but actually turned slower, it was the roll rate that caused them to be shown to be more maneuverable. 

 

3) So in 2.0 WG just made it harder to learn and know plane behaviors, they need to learn tactics,+ new rules new strategy

got it? new players got frustrated because they couldn't learn tactics and know planes.. now its harder to learn and they need to learn new rules and strategies.

 

Spoiler

- That's a subjective opinion, the tactics and rules are *different* not additional, the pace of games is now faster and being in a low altitude plane forcing it to climb to 4k altitude is no longer punished, you no longer have a particular plane class that is heavily punished because of the climb high, wait all game and dive down on low energy planes. Anyone who played pre-2.0 saw the abuse of such mechanics and "OP flights" who would stay high all game, wait until their whole team died, then farm kills on bots who would struggle to climb to them and players who simply couldn't catch them. You never, ever get those scenarios now and the act of "OP Flights" and "OP planes" are almost non-existent. Yes strong and skilled players in strong planes can have an impact but they won't demolish the entire enemy team with little effort and focus the few enemy players, taking them out in the first 30 seconds of the engagement, thus your game is now done and gone. 

 

4) we proved that game is unfair because of the bots, one side human player play much better than other human but defeats

 

Spoiler

- I have yet to see actual "proof" or actual "evidence". With no mention of imbalancing of bots from the developers, I have to believe without mention, then nothing was changed in the way MM puts bots into the different teams and the amount of bots at the different skill levels etc. The only thing ever that was different was the planes those bots were assigned, which can't be helped. If you have a 1 player go in a GAA in the MM and 3 players in fighters, then you NEED the MM to put a bot in a bomber or GAA, and it doesn't matter the skill level or tier, that bot will never be as effective as a player in one of those aircraft. That is the unfortunate aspect of not having more players and the effects of random chance. 

 

5) paradox 2:  .they believe if 2.0 had more player so less bot game game becomes more fair,it's completely wrong.. it's random and depends on your luck to have good teammates or not if the game was full of human players it was much more unfair. depends on your luck some times a noob team and definitely a defeat... no matter how much you try. and sometimes a good team, you can be AFK and win. in 1.9 when a good player had bad team it was a challenging victory with 10 kills and always there was a way to victory without your team.

 

Spoiler

- Refer above and you mention yourself the balancing of bots is more "fair" than the element of more players at any time. The fact it's supposed to be a team based game and you can still have acts of individual excellence carry a victory, you just need a different skill set and ability to read the map. Whereas before it was staying high and using BnZ planes only, or exceptional piloting skills to bait enemies into crashing into the floor while you evade. I will say I really wish you could evade enemy fire like you used to be able to, but i understand that part is from the removal of the lead indicator and the way people aim now and the use of aim assist makes this somewhat impossible as far as I'm aware. 

 

6)  now everything depends on your team and new players couldn't know why they are loser or winner. some times they play bad but victory sometimes try hard but defeat.

 

Spoiler

- This is the idea of the "mastery rank" and being told the 3 categories your aircraft should focus on, being rewarded on those tasks actually gives you more xp and credits and losing than ignoring all of those, farming kills and winning. There are plenty of things in the game now that reward individual performance towards a team victory, you are not punished for a loss like you used to be. This is highlighted throughout most of it. It's just some refuse to adapt or don't like the system and it's rather ambiguous way the after battle screen shows your performance in rewards. But a recent blog post did address this (if it's up yet). 

 

7)  they believe 1.9 wasn't successful due to low population... but now the number of 2 players is half of 1.9. how can it be a step to the front?

 

Spoiler

- 1.9 and before wasn't successful because of a lot more issues than low population, it was the things that caused low population. Those things are discussed at length in the forums from things as simple as "Imbalanced plane classes"  and "unrealistic national traits vs plane performance IRL". You then get things like a lack of end-game content. The games issues to begin with, the somewhat problematic competition when the game first launched that encouraged everyone to seal club at tier 2 and farm all the new players. Anyone who played from release until about 1.4 knows the improvements that were made. Then you had the mouse and keyboard changes made in 1.5 that were somewhat disastrous for the population, if i remember correctly the population of the main clans dropped by at least 2/3 because people simply couldn't play the game any more and would have to re-learn the control systems and camera systems of old. 

 

As for the amount of players, there is still no actual figures released, there's only guessed numbers and "average" and "estimated" values, nothing actually considered proof. As someone who doesn't use the word "it has been proved" unless there's actual evidence with hard facts not "guessed values". The other part is that it's not just the amount of players, but the amount of players who pay vs the amount of players who before didn't. There's been a lot of new blood and coverage by various people in the community who have also said the game is far better than it used to be. Granted those whom say it is worse. But over-all the feeling has been more positive than negative bar a lot of 1.9 hardcore people whom don't like change. 

 

8)   most of players has left the game but they believe the game is now better !!!

 

Spoiler

- You say "most of players" do you have actual figures, numbers and values of these? I know of a lot of people who said "I never play this game again!" Then come to the forums and state how they play and what they're frustrated with. Refusing to play to the new game-mode STILL and complain about it. The amount of people you knew who played might have stopped, but there are also many who have started. Many people pre 2.0 would stop playing in quiet times, come back only for the competitions and special releases of new planes or new free premiums etc. I know I was one of them whom had and still have nothing to do in the game. In that regard nothing has changed, but at least progress has been made to recruit and retain new players, while possibly invigorating older players. You can't please everyone, but reading posts like these on the forums are becoming quite tiresome and leading to an element of "self fulfilling prophecy". People who are positive about the game and 2.0 no longer come to the forums usually due to the same people saying the same things and the persistent negative vibe and complaint circle that is seen far too often. 

 

 

Horcan, on 04 May 2018 - 06:10 PM, said:

Pretty much what i said above, but yours is far more succinct, but rather less diplomatic! There is an element now that after a few months and repeated answers the old will not come back no matter how much people complain, persisting on the complaining is only driving people away from being a positive contribution to the forums as they (myself speaking for others) are somewhat fatigued trying to swim against a continual tide of negativity and complaining. (This is coming from a Brit who consider complaining a part of our National identity!) 

 

Dr_Ar_MG, on 04 May 2018 - 10:25 PM, said:

 

 

Round 2! Fight! 

 

- Performance now is somewhat worse on some maps, the same on others. The issue again is optimisation and the element of consistency across the whole game, this I wholeheartedly agree is something that could/should be addressed, but I am also aware of the size of the team that works on WoWP and the workload they have along with balancing and introducing new things is a mammoth task that is by no means a quick easy job. 

 

 

jakub_czyli_ja, on 05 May 2018 - 09:12 AM, said:

 

 

Skill based MM only ever works in a game that has a HUGE player base and where people have to pay for their accounts. As soon as you get a Free-to-play game you get "re-rolls", "smurfs" and the whole power-levelling and selling of accounts. You get people who will never strive to improve, never see something good from a player in their game. There's no element to improve, it's encouraging people to stay at "their level" yes the skill can be somewhat more matching to their own. But anyone who has EVER played a skill based MM game knows it's not fool proof and even the element of World of Warships Ranked battles that does have skill based MM is far from perfect, doesn't work. In World of Tanks when you get skill based MM from the aspect of clan-wars and top clans use advances, again, it doesn't work because some people don't work well together and bad people can still be carried to success. 

 

Skill based MM is not the answer to all of the games problems, and is never a solution in a F2P game. 

 

"Manly decisions" have been made by developers, not just over 2.0 but the way it's implemented and the changes to MM as well as other aspect of the game. Just because you don't agree with them or don't like them, does not change the fact they were "manly decisions" and not treating "players like brats". 

 

 

 

[zeitza]

 

I will just leave this again here for all the ultracrepidarians.

Edited by zeitza, 08 May 2018 - 07:58 AM.

[Spuggy]

I feel I have to stick my oar in here.

 

I will admit I played virtually zero of pre 2.0.

 

My personal experience with the game has been good. My ability to grasp aerial combat might be better than most though as I have a fair bit of experience in these types of games.

 

This is where I think the main issue lies with WoWP's. Flight simulators were always very niche in gaming. Many people just don't get how you fly an aircraft for starters (this is why we don't have flying cars yet). Then when you have to throw in the fact you need to fight other aircraft it just becomes so difficult for players that they just can't grasp it.

 

Throw into the mix the flight model which is optimized for mouse control and many gamers who come to play with a yoke find it incredibly jarring that the aircraft doesn't do what you expect it to do when using a yoke. This is an issue that should be resolved.

 

Now then. The game play....... In my experience the game play is of the correct level of complexity. I might think that there should be a little more differentiation between aircraft in capabilities but it seems fairly well balanced out. Capturing sectors isn't an ambiguous affair. When you shoot down planes you instantly see your influence raise. The main ambiguity comes from the initial phase of the match where some planes are white. Perhaps if these were orange this would let you know that these aren't friendly but they also aren't your main threat.

 

The aircraft......

Some aircraft are far easier to fly than others. There is a whole spectrum of skill required for each aircraft line. A good example is the spitfire line. The spitfire is the most forgiving aircraft line in the whole game. It's easy to fly because it performs well in all categories. It has good speed, good maneuverability, good rate of climb, good altitude range, good firepower and good durability. This lets it do almost anything well meaning you can play this type of plane with any play style and get good results.

 

The Zero line has a little more difficulty to it though. The Zero is slower than the Spitfire, has a lower altitude limit, less firepower and is far more fragile. However, it pays for all of this by being unbeatable in turn fighting. someone who masters the Zero's abilities becomes very dangerous in one.

 

The Mustang line is another aircraft that is harder to fly than the Zero. It's abilities are actually similar to the spitfire but it's faster and operates at higher altitudes. It's not a "Dive fighter", It's a high altitude turn fighter. Knowing you shouldn't drop down low to turn fight things (especially Zero's) at low altitude is key. Also knowing how to "extend" and what extending is is also key. Knowing you can out perform heavy fighters at altitude will also help your performance. This is a lot of skill for a player to learn.

 

Then there is the Messerschmitt line. The Messerschmitt is a vertical fighter. Fighting vertically is incredibly difficult but massively rewarding when done right. This is the only time that "energy retention" is really really important and once you understand that you can start to learn how to fight vertically.

 

Then there is the LaGG / LA line for the USSR. This line of fighters are "Transitional Manuever" fighters. Their rate of role allows you to very quickly turn left then right. Think "Scissor Manuever". The Scissor is a very very difficult manuever which actually requires your opponent to enter the manuever with you. This makes it difficult to practice this but once you get it you can learn to use it to win a fight or escape.

 

I've only really talked about the basics of 5 different light fighters here. I haven't even approached the fact that nations have multiple lines and multiple types.

 

WOWP's is very complex once you get past the initial "Arcade" introduction. Yes, the flight model is simple. Yes, the damage model is unrealistic (with enough realism to help - critical hits). But this is an intriguing game.

 

This is why we play. The game is fairly simple to learn but believe me, it is not easy to master.

[CheefCoach]

zeitza, on 08 May 2018 - 08:25 AM, said:

 

I will just leave this again here for all the ultracrepidarians.

 

1. You wont get 0 points for being AFK. You get 0 points if you leave the game early or I believe if you kill friendly plane. So what RP 2 did is unclear. 

2. I don't like when somebody only post end report. You need to put in entire video. Decisive hour is map that is very friendly toward IL 20, so high scores are easy to archive. Still it is unclear what actually happened.

[dreambill]

oops! wrong post

Edited by dreambill, 09 May 2018 - 07:22 PM.

[Dr_Ar_MG]

eekeeboo, on 07 May 2018 - 11:42 PM, said:

Prepare yourselves! Wall of text is coming! I don't mind if this doesn't get read, I don't mind if those i've replied to don't read either. This is a faint attempt to counter the constant swing of negativity and pestering from a singular perspective on 2.0. This is the other side of the perspective and offering a contrasting opinion from someone who liked 1.9 and still likes and enjoys 2.0.

 

P1:

- The capturing rules are actually pretty simplistic and easy to understand (in my opinion). For those who were not as fortunate to find them as intuitive the level of available information to explain it, even on the day of release for 2.0 was quite a lot and readily available in-game by pressing F1. The only thing missing was a tutorial perhaps for really new players to walk them through things. 

easy or hard.. clear or not...simple or complex, it's not the point.

you didn't get it. new noobs had one problem in 1.9 now it's the old problem from 1.9 + learning easy simple beautiful what ever you said.  got it ?

 

Block Quote

 - The plane behaviours are now more uniform and less drastically different, for example the 209A and the Ta 152. The different methods to handle the planes you required before are no longer as harsh or punishing. As you get up the tiers you need to learn those plane behaviours true, but at tier 7-8 the penalty for not learning is not as harsh still as it used to be at tier 4 (110 and 109b spring to mind). Furthermore the ability to "compare aircraft" even when it was in game was never 100% accurate, not just because of the non-real time comparisons and the effects of equipment and pilot skills. The stats were compared over-all, not on an individual basis, when you had planes that had higher maneuverability on stats, but actually turned slower, it was the roll rate that caused them to be shown to be more maneuverable. 

"- The plane behaviours are now more uniform and less drastically different," this is one of the reasons that old players left the game, but I don't wanna talk about it. some guys believe that the behaviours are still like they were in 1.9. and I supposed what they said.also I'm talking about noobs who tries to turn with Fw-190 kill an A6M. I even saw players who tried to get my spitfire with heavy fighter. the don't know about planes. in 1.9 they could learn it in. tutorial level (there were 3 levels but not enough). they could learn before the battle starts and compare thier planes with others. or could see on the left side-down  corner screen. to know is their plane more meuverable/faster/etc or not... but now in 2.0 can't.

 

and I didn't say 1.9 was perfect but it was better. yes it was not 100% accurate. they could fix it but now in 2.0 there's nothing. a players doesn't know the MiG I-120 is more maneuvrable than spitfire or not.

Block Quote

 - That's a subjective opinion, the tactics and rules are *different* not additional, the pace of games is now faster and being in a low altitude plane forcing it to climb to 4k altitude is no longer punished, you no longer have a particular plane class that is heavily punished because of the climb high, wait all game and dive down on low energy planes. Anyone who played pre-2.0 saw the abuse of such mechanics and "OP flights" who would stay high all game, wait until their whole team died, then farm kills on bots who would struggle to climb to them and players who simply couldn't catch them. You never, ever get those scenarios now and the act of "OP Flights" and "OP planes" are almost non-existent. Yes strong and skilled players in strong planes can have an impact but they won't demolish the entire enemy team with little effort and focus the few enemy players, taking them out in the first 30 seconds of the engagement, thus your game is now done and gone. 

 again! some guys believe that all tactics in 1.9 are still possible and useful as they were in 1.9. and I talked about their paradox.. got it ?!!

anyway. yes it was the weakness and bad part of 1.9.they solved this problem in 2.0 but in a wrong way. yeah solved but ruined many other good things. I talked a lot about this before

Block Quote

 - I have yet to see actual "proof" or actual "evidence". With no mention of imbalancing of bots from the developers, I have to believe without mention, then nothing was changed in the way MM puts bots into the different teams and the amount of bots at the different skill levels etc. The only thing ever that was different was the planes those bots were assigned, which can't be helped. If you have a 1 player go in a GAA in the MM and 3 players in fighters, then you NEED the MM to put a bot in a bomber or GAA, and it doesn't matter the skill level or tier, that bot will never be as effective as a player in one of those aircraft. That is the unfortunate aspect of not having more players and the effects of random chance.

 more players make it worse. imagine a game full of players. it might to have a good team or a bad one. depends on your luck ...it could be worse than unfair bots.

this mornig I've had a battle, I had Ta-183 vs Yak-19, the yak is faster and easier to kill defenders and capture. I don't wanna talk about the imbalances of planes. 3 of my bots was flying over our blue command center. one enemy heavyfighter tried to capture but they killed it. no military center, no bombers above it. no enemy plane over it but after 15 sec it turned to red magically. this is what I talking about.

 

many examples. one side player +14k personal point. kille the opposite player 2 times, captured 2-3 sectors. but defeats by destroying combat group ! one side can respawn 4 times and win with 3k personal pionts or sometimes ZERO personal point and other side the player loses while played as well as possible.

Block Quote

 - This is the idea of the "mastery rank" and being told the 3 categories your aircraft should focus on, being rewarded on those tasks actually gives you more xp and credits and losing than ignoring all of those, farming kills and winning. There are plenty of things in the game now that reward individual performance towards a team victory, you are not punished for a loss like you used to be. This is highlighted throughout most of it. It's just some refuse to adapt or don't like the system and it's rather ambiguous way the after battle screen shows your performance in rewards. But a recent blog post did address this (if it's up yet). 

 some battles, completed mastery rank. but still defeats, specially 1 vs 1 high tiers. one side 14-20 k personal points other side 3-7k and

and again. for new players doing these tasks and knowing planes behaviors in a battle is harder than, just know the behaviors and just kill enemy.

Block Quote

 

- 1.9 and before wasn't successful because of a lot more issues than low population, it was the things that caused low population. Those things are discussed at length in the forums from things as simple as "Imbalanced plane classes"  and "unrealistic national traits vs plane performance IRL". You then get things like a lack of end-game content. The games issues to begin with, the somewhat problematic competition when the game first launched that encouraged everyone to seal club at tier 2 and farm all the new players. Anyone who played from release until about 1.4 knows the improvements that were made. Then you had the mouse and keyboard changes made in 1.5 that were somewhat disastrous for the population, if i remember correctly the population of the main clans dropped by at least 2/3 because people simply couldn't play the game any more and would have to re-learn the control systems and camera systems of old. 

 

As for the amount of players, there is still no actual figures released, there's only guessed numbers and "average" and "estimated" values, nothing actually considered proof. As someone who doesn't use the word "it has been proved" unless there's actual evidence with hard facts not "guessed values". The other part is that it's not just the amount of players, but the amount of players who pay vs the amount of players who before didn't. There's been a lot of new blood and coverage by various people in the community who have also said the game is far better than it used to be. Granted those whom say it is worse. But over-all the feeling has been more positive than negative bar a lot of 1.9 hardcore people whom don't like change. 

  the number of players shows that how much a game is popular, and decreasing of it shows that most of the players hate it. you can't say I have half customers than I had before, I lost old customers and everyday less customers but my business is getting better !

 

anyway, all the calculation was the Maximum possible amounts and numbers in 2.0 (mean the reals numbers are lower than them definitely) VERSUS the Exact numbers and averages (not maximums) in 1.9

it mean they are not exact and real numbers but definitely the real numbers are less than I calculated.... and even If I had a wrong method with a big error, but I used same method for all calculations and the reduction of numbers proves that game is going down.

Block Quote

 - You say "most of players" do you have actual figures, numbers and values of these? I know of a lot of people who said "I never play this game again!" Then come to the forums and state how they play and what they're frustrated with. Refusing to play to the new game-mode STILL and complain about it. The amount of people you knew who played might have stopped, but there are also many who have started. Many people pre 2.0 would stop playing in quiet times, come back only for the competitions and special releases of new planes or new free premiums etc. I know I was one of them whom had and still have nothing to do in the game. In that regard nothing has changed, but at least progress has been made to recruit and retain new players, while possibly invigorating older players. You can't please everyone, but reading posts like these on the forums are becoming quite tiresome and leading to an element of "self fulfilling prophecy". People who are positive about the game and 2.0 no longer come to the forums usually due to the same people saying the same things and the persistent negative vibe and complaint circle that is seen far too often. 

 YES I have..

and you're worng. you can check "Reverse back to 1.9" and "How many players played last day"

 

 

 

[jakub_czyli_ja]

eekeeboo, on 07 May 2018 - 11:42 PM, said:

Prepare yourselves! Wall of text is coming! I don't mind if this doesn't get read, I don't mind if those i've replied to don't read either. This is a faint attempt to counter the constant swing of negativity and pestering from a singular perspective on 2.0. This is the other side of the perspective and offering a contrasting opinion from someone who liked 1.9 and still likes and enjoys 2.0. 

 

1) Paradox 1: 2.0 fans believe, all tactics and self skills in 1.9 still are possible and useful in 2.0... so if we suppose they are right .... WG just added some new strange rules of capturing bases, some new complex rules which are not clear for everybody.

 

- The capturing rules are actually pretty simplistic and easy to understand (in my opinion). For those who were not as fortunate to find them as intuitive the level of available information to explain it, even on the day of release for 2.0 was quite a lot and readily available in-game by pressing F1. The only thing missing was a tutorial perhaps for really new players to walk them through things.

Really?

Can you provide a screenshot from any material about capturing?

That says that Airfield caps by killing all planes and you don't have to care about GTs, Mining Plant you need to level, and other targets you need x+y - x GTs + y defending planes and they aren't 0?

About that thing of accumulation of capture points, that if you shot down the lone hero who do most of the job, you get his points?

 

Block Quote

 - The plane behaviours are now more uniform and less drastically different, for example the 209A and the Ta 152. The different methods to handle the planes you required before are no longer as harsh or punishing. As you get up the tiers you need to learn those plane behaviours true, but at tier 7-8 the penalty for not learning is not as harsh still as it used to be at tier 4 (110 and 109b spring to mind). Furthermore the ability to "compare aircraft" even when it was in game was never 100% accurate, not just because of the non-real time comparisons and the effects of equipment and pilot skills. The stats were compared over-all, not on an individual basis, when you had planes that had higher maneuverability on stats, but actually turned slower, it was the roll rate that caused them to be shown to be more maneuverable. 

So tldr line is: WG made broken indicators and lying stats, and now it's good that they removed it at all.

 

At the same moment they made planes all-alike (the most drastic case is tier VII heavy fighters), and forced players to re-learn everything hard way - player flies F7F, meets 109Z and surprise - can't outturn.

So battle lost and then visit on the website and check.

Somehow, as with rules, I don't remember any big wall of text describing all changes of all planes made between 1.9 and 2.0.

 

Block Quote

 - That's a subjective opinion, the tactics and rules are *different* not additional, the pace of games is now faster and being in a low altitude plane forcing it to climb to 4k altitude is no longer punished, you no longer have a particular plane class that is heavily punished because of the climb high, wait all game and dive down on low energy planes. Anyone who played pre-2.0 saw the abuse of such mechanics and "OP flights" who would stay high all game, wait until their whole team died, then farm kills on bots who would struggle to climb to them and players who simply couldn't catch them. You never, ever get those scenarios now and the act of "OP Flights" and "OP planes" are almost non-existent. Yes strong and skilled players in strong planes can have an impact but they won't demolish the entire enemy team with little effort and focus the few enemy players, taking them out in the first 30 seconds of the engagement, thus your game is now done and gone. 

And again: WG made broken mechanics in 1.9, and now flipped it all around, going to the other wall.

 

Instead of punished TnB planes there is a class that is heavy punished because planes from that class are balanced to operate high, and now they have nothing to look for there.

OP planes and OP flights are these who fly low and turn fast, because whole gameplay is designed to suit such planes.

 

Block Quote

 - Refer above and you mention yourself the balancing of bots is more "fair" than the element of more players at any time. The fact it's supposed to be a team based game and you can still have acts of individual excellence carry a victory, you just need a different skill set and ability to read the map.

Supposed to be a team game, while any ways to control bots to behave like a team (or a herd), were removed.

There are plenty of screnshot of individual attempts to carry a battle, and still losing due to bots strange behavior.

I've seen bots that were actively avoiding engagement, letting enemy bots do their job - either fighter hanging a 1km over enemy GAA, while there are no other enemy planes around, or just not shooting in 3 on 1 situation.

 

Block Quote

 - This is the idea of the "mastery rank" and being told the 3 categories your aircraft should focus on, being rewarded on those tasks actually gives you more xp and credits and losing than ignoring all of those, farming kills and winning. There are plenty of things in the game now that reward individual performance towards a team victory, you are not punished for a loss like you used to be. This is highlighted throughout most of it. It's just some refuse to adapt or don't like the system and it's rather ambiguous way the after battle screen shows your performance in rewards. But a recent blog post did address this (if it's up yet). 

The problem is that these "3 categories" are just sucked from WG's thumb.

There are incidental mechanic "features" that support these categories, like lowered ability to shot planes by GAA.

Most other cases are wishful thinking - one class destined to shot down planes that are attacking targets, the other to shot down planes that are defending targets. Shooting plane down is shooting plane down, they are all-alike targets. But not in WG's eye.

 

Block Quote

As for the amount of players, there is still no actual figures released, there's only guessed numbers and "average" and "estimated" values, nothing actually considered proof. As someone who doesn't use the word "it has been proved" unless there's actual evidence with hard facts not "guessed values". The other part is that it's not just the amount of players, but the amount of players who pay vs the amount of players who before didn't. There's been a lot of new blood and coverage by various people in the community who have also said the game is far better than it used to be. Granted those whom say it is worse. But over-all the feeling has been more positive than negative bar a lot of 1.9 hardcore people whom don't like change. 

And again denial the method that shows the feeling per saldo is more negative, as HoF shows.

 

Block Quote

 - You say "most of players" do you have actual figures, numbers and values of these? I know of a lot of people who said "I never play this game again!" Then come to the forums and state how they play and what they're frustrated with. Refusing to play to the new game-mode STILL and complain about it. The amount of people you knew who played might have stopped, but there are also many who have started. Many people pre 2.0 would stop playing in quiet times, come back only for the competitions and special releases of new planes or new free premiums etc. I know I was one of them whom had and still have nothing to do in the game. In that regard nothing has changed, but at least progress has been made to recruit and retain new players, while possibly invigorating older players. You can't please everyone, but reading posts like these on the forums are becoming quite tiresome and leading to an element of "self fulfilling prophecy". People who are positive about the game and 2.0 no longer come to the forums usually due to the same people saying the same things and the persistent negative vibe and complaint circle that is seen far too often. 

Figures are in https://worldofwarpl...=jakub_czyli_ja (when it works), and history of regular checks http://forum.worldof...7-hall-of-fame/

It reflects increase of active players during events, and nobody denies that, only when it started to indicate steady drop of player numbers, you started denial.

 

About forum - most players don't read the forums of this, or any other. game. They just play. So impact of forum attitude is exaggerated.

Other reason of people being positive about the game not writing is that after a number of hours spent in game, they might started to see things different.

 

Block Quote

Skill based MM only ever works in a game that has a HUGE player base and where people have to pay for their accounts. As soon as you get a Free-to-play game you get "re-rolls", "smurfs" and the whole power-levelling and selling of accounts. You get people who will never strive to improve, never see something good from a player in their game. There's no element to improve, it's encouraging people to stay at "their level" yes the skill can be somewhat more matching to their own.

 

Skill based MM is not the answer to all of the games problems, and is never a solution in a F2P game. 

And what's wrong with all that?

I don't want to improve, I enjoy staying on my level - why to force me as a player to improvements?

Somebody wants to have blue stats - what's wrong with that? And how will that interfere with skill based MM?

And when you have bots, you aren't bound to 15 vs 15 human battles, it can be 1 vs 1 (even now it often is).

Block Quote

But anyone who has EVER played a skill based MM game knows it's not fool proof and even the element of World of Warships Ranked battles that does have skill based MM is far from perfect, doesn't work. In World of Tanks when you get skill based MM from the aspect of clan-wars and top clans use advances, again, it doesn't work because some people don't work well together and bad people can still be carried to success. 

Real life shows that skill based mm works in sports, and it doesn't have to be perfect - it should be better than it is now.

Skill based MM for random is for individual players, not for teams, like WoT CW. And clan issues are clan issues, they are probably standard team composition issues, magnified by fact that managers don't have a variety of punishments, as in most of RL teams, but only one - kick from the clan. But that, unlike the rest, is not WG's fault.

Block Quote

"Manly decisions" have been made by developers, not just over 2.0 but the way it's implemented and the changes to MM as well as other aspect of the game. Just because you don't agree with them or don't like them, does not change the fact they were "manly decisions" and not treating "players like brats".

They were decisions sucked from the thumb, because they were made before release, without real data, how do they work with playerbase.

The only manly decision I've seen lately was to remove artillery from AW PvP - this is the level of 'manly'. All the rest is floating like a turd in airhole, like artillery changes in WoT - same cancer as few years before, during artyparties.

No major issue was fixed, only covered.

 

 

[eekeeboo]

Dr_Ar_MG, on 09 May 2018 - 05:26 AM, said:

 

 

Actually that was your point about the "ambiguous mechanics" in particular you mentioned capping. 

 

The "old problem" is a different "problem" a game should have something to learn, otherwise it gets boring.

 

The plane handling is the same, in that the camera angle is what affects the perception. The difference now is the way a lot of planes changed with altitude performance. The aiming system means cannons are less punishing, stay high all game and dive (BnZ) is no longer the predominant tactic to win a game. 

 

The plane learning is down to an age old issue of a lack of tutorial and help, but can be learned from watching experienced players. As for knowing whether the plane is more maneuverable or not? That's down to experience, checking it in the tech tree. You should know a fighter vs multi role, your fighter will be a better turn fighter most of the time. Hence why i said you choose the strengths of your plane and stick to it. 

 

Tactics can still be used in 2.0, if they didn't work then I wouldn't be able to win as much as I do, as well as other good players from 1.9. My winrate would be significantly higher if that's all i was worried about and focused on it, but i'm happy to mess my game up for people's entertainment often enough. 

 

There is no value given for number of players, again, it's all speculated and guessed numbers, the judgement on a guessed number is like betting on a horse before the race saying that it's guaranteed it's going to win because it's won all the other races etc. The fact you "average" the number and value of play time, with no definitive value. You don't know how much those players played and paid before vs now, you don't know how many of those come from WoT and WoWS and share account so buy various account buffs for it. It's pure speculation and an exercise in futility trying to prove a point by guessing values. 

 

You show me EXACTLY the place you go server population numbers, and i will retract my statement. And I mean EXACT and definite values, not guess and estimated values. 

 

jakub_czyli_ja, on 09 May 2018 - 06:35 AM, said:

 

 

You look at the middle circle that tells you how many points you just earned, hold alt and it will tell you how many more you need, that's how easy it is. It tells you live, how many points you earn/lose in the cap as you play. 

 

I can't tell where you got the "wg made broken stats etc...." As that isn't what I said, please clarify. 

 

The fly low and turn fast planes as OP in flights? I don't see it, you can win in a flight of GAA vs TnB planes. You can win in a flight of energy fighters vs TnB fighters (I've done it in all conditions), you just need to know how to fly and react. If you don't want to learn how to combat certain planes (classes etc) then you are doomed to repeat the same mistake. 

 

You can still get bots to be influenced by your chat commands, or do what I do and protect the bots, use them as your bullet shield and bait. 

 

If your plane is given the stats to perform at set roles, giving players an idea what they should do in that particular class and what it's best at. How is this a bad thing and it again counters the point people make about ambiguity and people not knowing what to do. It's right there, hold tab. 

 

You STILL give me "estimated" and "average" values, I'm waiting for the day you give me actual player numbers. Just like you and others provide the players numbers from the website that gives actual player numbers through each day and time of day etc, why is it you expect that and use that from 1.9 but somehow need and happy to use magic numbers for 2.0? I can tell you now that in 1.9 the player pop on EU server was 200-500 most? 

 

So you enjoy seal clubbing and hammering people you're better at, but don't like it when it's done to you? Seriously?If you don't want to learn to improve your tactics, play PvE and/or play a simulator. Don't make a arcade pvp dogfighting game try to be something it's not. 

 

If you played WoWS ranked and Tanks you'd know the skill based mm is not better than what you have in planes, right now wowp has the fairest mm out of all the games due to +/- 1. I am curious to know the Free to Play games you've played with skill based MM you have experience with and how it worked. 

 

 Real life skill based MM... what? 

 

For "manly" decision removing a class from pvp... not redesigning your game and trying to start a-new. That is some selective sight right there. 

 

[jakub_czyli_ja]

eekeeboo, on 09 May 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

You look at the middle circle that tells you how many points you just earned, hold alt and it will tell you how many more you need, that's how easy it is. It tells you live, how many points you earn/lose in the cap as you play.

And these thingies with planes accumulating cap points?

Block Quote

I can't tell where you got the "wg made broken stats etc...." As that isn't what I said, please clarify.

"The stats were compared over-all, not on an individual basis, when you had planes that had higher maneuverability on stats, but actually turned slower, it was the roll rate that caused them to be shown to be more maneuverable. "

Broken indicators.

Block Quote

The fly low and turn fast planes as OP in flights? I don't see it, you can win in a flight of GAA vs TnB planes. You can win in a flight of energy fighters vs TnB fighters (I've done it in all conditions), you just need to know how to fly and react. If you don't want to learn how to combat certain planes (classes etc) then you are doomed to repeat the same mistake.

I've seen. Not my fault that there are much less statpadders and because of that issues aren't so clarly visible as they were in 1.9.

Block Quote

You can still get bots to be influenced by your chat commands, or do what I do and protect the bots, use them as your bullet shield and bait.

 Much less than in 1.9.

Starting from initial spreading.

Block Quote

You STILL give me "estimated" and "average" values, I'm waiting for the day you give me actual player numbers.

How is hard work of checking players in HoF "estimation"?

Every day when HoF works you can check exact numbers og players having 20 battles last week or 5 battles last day.

Block Quote

Just like you and others provide the players numbers from the website that gives actual player numbers through each day and time of day etc, why is it you expect that and use that from 1.9 but somehow need and happy to use magic numbers for 2.0? I can tell you now that in 1.9 the player pop on EU server was 200-500 most?

Nice to know that you have no idea in things you are trying to discuss about.

If you'd check the thread I linked, you'd find, how they are gathered.

Block Quote

So you enjoy seal clubbing and hammering people you're better at, but don't like it when it's done to you? Seriously?If you don't want to learn to improve your tactics, play PvE and/or play a simulator. Don't make a arcade pvp dogfighting game try to be something it's not. 

How did you come to such conclusion that I enjoy? I don't like landslides or artificial equaling chances.

This game is PvE in most of cases. With a big issue with retention.

Block Quote

If you played WoWS ranked and Tanks you'd know the skill based mm is not better than what you have in planes, right now wowp has the fairest mm out of all the games due to +/- 1. I am curious to know the Free to Play games you've played with skill based MM you have experience with and how it worked. 

I didn't. If that MM is based on number of won battles, it ain't skill based. Bernoulli scheme does the trick.

I also wonder why do you put so much emphasis on free to play model. Probably another mutatio controversiae.

Block Quote

 For "manly" decision removing a class from pvp... not redesigning your game and trying to start a-new. That is some selective sight right there. 

Without addressing obvious issues? Yes, it's really selective.

Flights, OP planes, lack of endgame, lack of team mode - all present in 1.9, all present in 2.0.

Plus even more unclear gameplay.

I see some difference.

 

[Dr_Ar_MG]

eekeeboo, on 09 May 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

 

Actually that was your point about the "ambiguous mechanics" in particular you mentioned capping. 

 

The "old problem" is a different "problem" a game should have something to learn, otherwise it gets boring.

 

The plane handling is the same, in that the camera angle is what affects the perception. The difference now is the way a lot of planes changed with altitude performance. The aiming system means cannons are less punishing, stay high all game and dive (BnZ) is no longer the predominant tactic to win a game. 

 

The plane learning is down to an age old issue of a lack of tutorial and help, but can be learned from watching experienced players. As for knowing whether the plane is more maneuverable or not? That's down to experience, checking it in the tech tree. You should know a fighter vs multi role, your fighter will be a better turn fighter most of the time. Hence why i said you choose the strengths of your plane and stick to it.

I'm agree with all you said above, these are what I said and some of 2.0 fans were disagree with me. so we don't have problem.

BUT...about what you said below.

 

Block Quote

Tactics can still be used in 2.0, if they didn't work then I wouldn't be able to win as much as I do, as well as other good players from 1.9. My winrate would be significantly higher if that's all i was worried about and focused on it, but i'm happy to mess my game up for people's entertainment often enough. 

 

these two lines are not match and have paradox.I call it eekeeboo paradox

, stay high all game and dive (BnZ) is no longer the predominant tactic to win a game. 

Tactics can still be used in 2.0, if they didn't work then I wouldn't be able to win as much as I do, as well as other good players from 1.9

First, I haven't said the tactics arenot possible anymore. I told they are not useful as they was before, and dude, many of old legends has left the game . . .they all know the tactics. but they think something else.

anyway. I think you play wen there'are more online players.. more players means less control from WG. but play 1 vs 1 battles to see the unfairs.

 

take a Ta-183 and play in a map without Command Center, to feel what I say. in 1.9 you could Wait do BnZ. with this plane. you had red aim, less critical chance and could do the ram attack.

now in 2.0..

-you have AA barrage in the high alt.

I tried this and every single times when I had head on attack against the UK fighter (attacker) or Yak-19 or Me 1093, my pilot injured before I get close enough to hit with my low range cannons.

and all ram attacks, all head on attacks with gannons against Yak, Attacker , Me 1092 and other fighters was my death or  both of us.

in 1.9 I could finish a target in one attack with my heavyfighter or fighter with big cannons, but now it's hard to even hit.

the problem for high alt planes like Me262 and Ta 183 , Javelin , Swift..

1- AA

2- no time to wait and BnZ

3-harder to aim

4-critical chance

5-the battle is in middle and low alt and you have to go down

6-bad radar and map

7-slower to kill defender and capture than other fighters like Attacker, FJ-1,Ki , Yak ,J7W

but for maneuverable fighters less problems..they can enjoy as they could in 1.9. and I don't say it's impossible to win, yes still you can do BnZ, you can intercept heavybombers ... escort your bombers and many other things ,and I know them

n 2.0 game play is harder for some planes but nothing changed for maneuverable planes

 

anyway, here I talked about something else, my point was: IF you THINK all tactics is still  POSSIBLE AND USEFUL as they was in 1.9. so it means new players now has two problems. 1-learning tactics 2-learning strategy.

 

if you think something else, that's not related to this topic

Block Quote

 

There is no value given for number of players, again, it's all speculated and guessed numbers, the judgement on a guessed number is like betting on a horse before the race saying that it's guaranteed it's going to win because it's won all the other races etc. The fact you "average" the number and value of play time, with no definitive value. You don't know how much those players played and paid before vs now, you don't know how many of those come from WoT and WoWS and share account so buy various account buffs for it. It's pure speculation and an exercise in futility trying to prove a point by guessing values. 

 

You show me EXACTLY the place you go server population numbers, and i will retract my statement. And I mean EXACT and definite values, not guess and estimated values.

  nope, I checked hall of fame, page to page, one by one, counted exact number of battles. for players with less 4 battle, I supposed the maximum possible numbers. I supposed 15 min for each battle. while just 15% of players plays more than 2 hours (8-10 battles) and 15 min is much higher, each battle for me is maximum 10 min.

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

so I estimated the maximum possible for 2.0 and compared with real exact average data from 1.9

Read more ...

how many players played last day

 

[eekeeboo]

jakub_czyli_ja, on 09 May 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:

And these thingies with planes accumulating cap points?

"The stats were compared over-all, not on an individual basis, when you had planes that had higher maneuverability on stats, but actually turned slower, it was the roll rate that caused them to be shown to be more maneuverable. "

Broken indicators.

I've seen. Not my fault that there are much less statpadders and because of that issues aren't so clarly visible as they were in 1.9.

 Much less than in 1.9.

Starting from initial spreading.

How is hard work of checking players in HoF "estimation"?

Every day when HoF works you can check exact numbers og players having 20 battles last week or 5 battles last day.

Nice to know that you have no idea in things you are trying to discuss about.

If you'd check the thread I linked, you'd find, how they are gathered.

How did you come to such conclusion that I enjoy? I don't like landslides or artificial equaling chances.

This game is PvE in most of cases. With a big issue with retention.

I didn't. If that MM is based on number of won battles, it ain't skill based. Bernoulli scheme does the trick.

I also wonder why do you put so much emphasis on free to play model. Probably another mutatio controversiae.

Without addressing obvious issues? Yes, it's really selective.

Flights, OP planes, lack of endgame, lack of team mode - all present in 1.9, all present in 2.0.

Plus even more unclear gameplay.

I see some difference.

 

 

Yep the alt tells you your cap points currently, it will also state on the log above mini map what points you are earning as you go.

 

I said stats were inaccurate over-all vs individual representation. Not broken, there's a significant difference. 

 

Nor did i say it was your fault, but if you see less of it, then clearly there's less opportunity for it, otherwise new players would do so, there are PLENTY of people who are very worried about their stats post 2.0. 

 

People complained bots all lemming trained, you can have one or the other not both. You can reduce the spread by stating attack a sector, but l prefer spreading out than a giant furball of doom that circles around waiting for someone to engage. 

 

As for "hard work" I have yet to see anyone provide actual play time, actual amount of games over-all for the playerbase. I'm waiting for people to provide actual comparative numbers vs other years. For example, at any given time between 1.5 and 1.7 i don't remember the game server numbers going above 1k the whole day, usually settling at an average of 200. But that's what I remember, I generally reduced my play time to when tournaments were on and others started too. This is all before anyone gives exact numbers of payment from players now vs before. Look at the number of goblin packages sold now vs before, just to start with. 

 

And another attempt to be antagonistic because you know I'm right, as I stated in your thread, you use the words guess, estimate and "average" and your data is not factual or valid. It's already manipulated before anyone gets to look at it. Anyone who works with data knows that, I'm sure you know this as you clearly "Know the things you are trying to discuss about." 

 

The act of playing against new players or those of lower skill and thus winning.You don't want to be matched against those whom are more skilled than yourself, you don't want to learn to adapt or dogfight or spend the game being challenged. Your reasoning is saying something like CSS is PvE because the emptier servers are filled with bots until players come online, would you say that game is PVP or PVE? 

 

I put emphasis on F2P games as I said repeatedly, I will re-emphasise for you; Free to play games, generally attract a different proportion of player demographics. Let alone a niche game like WoWP vs Fortnite. You then further compound that with the fact a person can just re-roll their account for free, then can reset for free. Everything is free and doesn't cost them anything. You compare that to someone who plays a game who just spent a premium price tag and try ranked, they're not going to go and play a "re-roll" or "smurf" account to get easier games unless they're willing to expend money. Any skilled player in this game and re-roll start a-fresh and go clubbing, thus affecting skill based mm. When you have that, you also get those willing to ogle and over emphasise stats for clan based situations, thus again getting people power-levelling and selling account services. All of the above affect skill based mm, especially in a F2P game and have a HUGE impact on small populations. 

 

As for your mathematical formula, how would that work based on only having analysis on 2 outcomes when there are other factors to involve? It's not just whether you win or lose, it's whether you lose at the top of your team or win at the bottom of your team etc. You have missions that affect whether you want to win or not, I know when i play for tokens of marathon missions, winning is something i don't care of, it's maximising efficiency on my objective. So it's not based on the number of won battles at all, the bernoulli scheme is designed to work with the principle of equal chance of outcome each and every time, it is simply a formula that is too rigid and does not work when put against variables and criteria that are not reductive and quantifiable as a failure/success. 

 

They did address an obvious issue, just like you state AW made a "manly" decision, but they didn't address the issue at all, they merely shifted it. The artillery class didn't change, it didn't affect the way people would use arti etc. The decision didn't change camping spots, sniping spots of map tactics. Lack of endgame is no different, but there's more objective now than before. As for unclear gameplay, that's rather subjective as I know plenty of people who find the game intuitive and it's obviously clear to those picking up the game anew that such as Jingles stated he was able to easier understand the game now vs before. So like i said, it's subjective, overall i hear more voices of clear gameplay with my own opinion (just press tab) and you get clarification. 

 

Dr_Ar_MG, on 10 May 2018 - 01:07 AM, said:

 

 

 

I have my own paradox?! Awesome! 

 

In my mention of tactics I don't mean stay high all game and dive. More than BnZ tactics both horizontal and vertical can work in 2.0. They're not going to carry a game like before but they can work. I don't see WG controlling my games, granted I lose games I stomp and there's not much I could do, but that's an element of RNG and I dont' want to win all my games, when i was winning all my games I got so very bored. If you look at the HoF the winrate of people went up 10-20% overall from the Albion event when it was mostly players vs bots. To test it I would actively play as axis and I still probably lost 1 game in the entire event. The big thing now to before is mini-map awareness and being able to relocate on the map. I have the advantage of WoT to help me with constantly looking at the mini map. 

 

As for the Ta 183... I HATED absolutely despised that plane pre 2.0. In 2.0 i found it far less cumbersome, it excels at certain jobs. I think this is one limitation of 2.0 but seems to be designed that way, that certain planes have very specific jobs and roles in games. This i personally enjoy, but planes such as the F2G though great in the role of GAA killer and defensive expert suffer heavily if there's no GAA on the enemy team. The Ta 183 now is built around speed, and I kinda see it a lot like a meteor in gameplay, you can out turn a lot of things, and you're more designed for bullying heavy fighters, while running away like a monster from everything else that out-turns you. You need to be far more cautious than before, but the respawn mechanic should allow you to be somewhat more reckless if you want more action. BnZ not requires far more discipline than before, not just picking your target but picking it at the right time and being so disciplined on your terminal velocity, energy retention etc, it's about not wasting anything and never letting yourself get pulled into the enemies game, even letting yourself get dragged at their optimum altitude. 

 

If it helps the swift and the ta183 are more horizontal and heavy fighter bullies now than they used to be. The Javelin is a plane I love and loathe at the same time, the guns can troll you so hard because of their long range convergence, but I hope planes like this become monsters when more higher tier bombers are in the game. But I love the Javelin and handle it way better than I do the HG3 or the XF90, preferring it to any of the tier 10 heavy fighters. I think a lot comes down to own personal play style and feel of planes, for instance I know so many who love the se100, me and that plane do not get along at all. 

 

The idea of learning tactics is not a new problem, it's something i began streaming for and went around helping people for. It's something I would like this forum to be more focused on than what it focuses more on now. Strategy is something you get with experience, holding tab and looking at the mini map. But again I would LOVE for the forums to be more about that than the torrential complaints (not meaning yourself) that the forums seems to be mostly these days. 

 

Like I said and I don't mean to be antagonistic, but i worked in statistics and experimental data analysis. As soon as you guess, estimate or manipulate your raw data in any way before actually analysing it, it's no longer valid. We simply do not have the raw data required to analyse and compare numbers like we would like to. And the reason we don't get that is because developers said that people spent more time focusing on player numbers than the game, perhaps they had a point?

 

If we had the data that was available for 1.9 and before then I would readily and happily work with you to compare those numbers, but like you, yourself stated "So I estimated the maximum possible for 2.0". 

 

[Dr_Ar_MG]

eekeeboo, on 13 May 2018 - 12:38 AM, said:

The idea of learning tactics is not a new problem, it's something i began streaming for and went around helping people for. It's something I would like this forum to be more focused on than what it focuses more on now. Strategy is something you get with experience, holding tab and looking at the mini map. But again I would LOVE for the forums to be more about that than the torrential complaints (not meaning yourself) that the forums seems to be mostly these days. 

 

yep it's not new problem and now it's harder than before, and still no tutorial levels...I'm if sure if 1.x had some tutorials levels for all types and different tactics now it was alive.

 

listen each game has its rules, the rules could be fair or not.. and how much more you know the rules better you can can win more and enjoy more, it's a fact, wowp 2.0 has its rules and the fact contains this game too. but our problem is that, the rules and the game play are designed too bad, and they could be much more better.

 

anyways

can you tell me what's the problem of 1.9 for the new players and why it couldn't attract them ?

and why do you think they solved the problems in 2.0?

if 2.0 is good  so why it has low amount of players? and numbers are going down

 

Block Quote

Like I said and I don't mean to be antagonistic, but i worked in statistics and experimental data analysis. As soon as you guess, estimate or manipulate your raw data in any way before actually analysing it, it's no longer valid. We simply do not have the raw data required to analyse and compare numbers like we would like to. And the reason we don't get that is because developers said that people spent more time focusing on player numbers than the game, perhaps they had a point?

 

 good I'm waiting.. I really like to see what you want to do.. listen I did no estimating no analysis ... counted one by one, 3 days ago 10 apples, last day ...1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7....yes last day 7 apples and. now 5 apples

it seems some one ate the apples.

 

and there's a poll in topic " Reverse back to 1.9" please analyze the raw data of it, and find its relationship with the reduction of players.

Block Quote

 If we had the data that was available for 1.9 and before then I would readily and happily work with you to compare those numbers, but like you, yourself stated "So I estimated the maximum possible for 2.0". 

 we had it... there was website saved the data of 1.x and I showed you the screen shot.

also some player had it I couldn't find it ....it was in other language... but I'm sure 1.9 had +7000 per week in hall of fame and now for 2.0 it's 5000+-500

 

I estimated the maximum possible for 2.0 (counted 1 by 1 the players and battles they fought in hall fame, but it just contains players with +5 battle day and +2.8 battle per week ... so I had to estimate a number for players with 4 battles and less, so I supposed a maximum for them) and compared it with exact numbers from 1.9.

 

about the comparison of daily and weekly numbers, it was the exact numbers from hall of fame... it has obvious reduction from when the 2.0 started till now...maybe the number of players with +5 battles is going down but players with 4 battles and less are increasing...

 

[eekeeboo]

Unfortunately there were no tutorials pre 2.0 either. You learned the hard way, and before it was a much steeper learning curve when BnZ was A LOT stronger even before it was nerfed 3 times and fuel consumable was likewise nerfed. 

 

The opinion on the rules and the game are subjective. The game was not viable before, so why keep the same thing when change is required? There is at least the possibility of trying something new and see if that becomes effective. Some people like WT others do not. It's finding the balance where the game can bring what no other can while maintaining a larger popularity and player base to be sustainable. Unfortunately what was 1.9 was not the case, I liked 1.9 only limiting my play time based on the lack of content for me to play, but it was by no means perfect and a lot of the issues i had with 1.9 and before are no longer there. 

 

The problem with 1.9 and before was not just the extremely strict play style required to play, if you deviated you lost. You made a mistake you lost, the time to progress was somewhat extensive if you weren't sure how to play or what to do. The game had very little if any easing in of players from turn and burn frenzy planes to the demanding disciplined BnZ tier 3 and 4 planes that only became more and more difficult to win in. ESPECIALLY stock. The game could be extremely tedious at times depending on who was on your team and others with those willing to circle and wait all game winning. You were punished for wanting to fight rather than play a flight simulator. Now if you want to include issues from before a lot of changes were made you had more issues such as 3 man flights, ram mechanics that were very unforgiving. Experienced players with good pilots and lots of credits could use premium ammo and fuel to enhance their BnZ to the point where you stood no chance what-so-ever at beating them unless you were in a similar position. Not everyone is stubborn and enjoys the challenge on getting better to beat them, but that's what it took for me to get good at this game. 

 

First the "low amount of players" you state are down to optimisation issues and bugs. Confirmation bias and the gradual reduction in hype from release. You then have the issues were people like myself and others who played extensively at the release of 2.0 have no completed nearly all the tech tree lines, they've got a stock pile of tickets and tokens, they have more credits than they could dream of. Now you play for experience and some fun, but people like myself who are objective and goal orientated will look elsewhere for fun. This happened at every stage of the game, it's why when there are special events and chances to earn free planes etc you will see a larger influx of players. On top of all of that quite simply a flight game isn't for everyone. It's not just about how many people play it's about who plays and how much they pay. 10 people who buy premium planes and premium time/gold is better than 100 people who don't put any money into the game at all. There were other games recently released that contend with parts of the player base. You have competitions and contests in the other WG games that detract from a playerbase of one game and move to the other. But for WG the fact they play any of their games and perhaps invests in one of those is a bonus. There are numerous reasons past the confirmation bias and it's about being able to look at things from multiple perspectives. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're entitled to your own opinion. But I see so few opinions provided from alternative perspectives and from more rational stand points that this forum is not currently a pleasant place to visit. 

 

You state evidence of a "poll" thread whereby people can use alternative accounts and re-rolls. There's a famous individual on this forums who's the biggest troll and negative person who on my last count has at least 5 different accounts for the forums because he used to negrep people who disagreed with him. Raw data is what counts, and all the data provided via these forums so far is now raw, it's manipulated and speculative, there's no actual substantial and/or valid figures been provided by any one person or persons. People who make judgements on such things are pre-judging a game and it's player base and you are bound to get all sorts of skewed results. It's like calculating the average of numbers, then complaining that 50% of the values are below average........ 

 

The API for planes 2.0 onwards has been disabled, this has the unfortunate but understandable effect of no player numbers, but the far more desirable and welcome stance of no mods like the hryunomod/xvm. I will take ambiguous player numbers over that mod ANY day. 

 

And finally you yourself state you had to estimate, you don't get the full raw figures you don't get the actual raw "exact" numbers to compare 2.0 to 1.9. There's no point in using a t-test analysis between significant change between sample X and sample Y if sample X is measured in a valid way and sample Y is rolling a dice and entering what number you think looks about right. 

 

 

[BravelyRanAway]

eekeeboo, on 13 May 2018 - 02:41 PM, said:

 Some people like WT others do not. It's finding the balance where the game can bring what no other can while maintaining a larger popularity and player base to be sustainable. 

Players that used to complain about WG rigging the MM and then say they were moving to WT always made me smile.

Funny how they never complain when WT does it...as in the above image from WT^^

[dreambill]

Dear Eekeeboo with all do respect I cannot see the positive you find in Conquest at all.

Firstly I'll agree with you that 1.9 wasn't perfect, had flaws and needed improvement.

But the solution to this by replacing 1.9 with Conquest is at least ridiculous IMHO and as stats are showing. Not a single improvement in population.

I'll give you 2 examples that noticed today playing.

In one situation I engage a neutral base alone against its bot defenses and the AA focus on me. After a wile 5 enemy planes come and attacking me. The "neutral" AA continue to focus me until it finishes me (at least for 1 min I managed to survive)

In 6 enemy planes dog fighting statistic says that in this 1 min time others would fulfill the criteria to be selected as targets from AA. This is Frustrating and extremely Bad design (as all the "neutral" concept)

In another I spawned in an advanced airfield with 6 bot of my team plus the airfields bots (around 10-12 allied aircraft) There was 1 enemy bot which immediately focus me and attacks me. I'm forced to dog fight him and

all the time until I killed him not a single of my bots (flying around) bothered to engage it, neither AA. The Bot AI is ridiculously bad designed so I'm not surprised so many considering it "rigged"

Info while playing is broken with this UI. In 1.9 we had all the info (More than V2.0) in main screen and no need to alter screens, witch is annoying at least.

And Overall after 1000 battles what i get from every defeat is frustration, while No Joy from victories. The game has an autopilot that in order to have impact in its outcome you need to do things that in my taste have nothing to do

with enjoying a good dog fight in it, which IMHO must be the primary in a plane game, as it was in V1.9.

Edited by dreambill, 13 May 2018 - 05:39 PM.