Jump to content


paradox of 2.0 supporters

mistake problems 2.0 1.9 fans new players paradox

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

jakub_czyli_ja #41 Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:16 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2346 battles
  • 9,335
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 13 May 2018 - 02:41 PM, said:

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.

No. Low players is because WoWP 2.0 sucks.

Technical issues add some, but main point is that game simply sucks - is overly complicated and not intuitive.

Block Quote

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.

And there is less such players than there were in 1.9. It's not an issue, at least for other people than WG.

Block Quote

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

WG (or accounts I suppose are from WG) admitted, that WoWP didn't bring money. Not a surprise.

So after releasing 2.0 after few years of development, when developers weren't improving 1.9 but making 2.0 and generating costs, 2.0 got an influx of new players, some paid for premium time, premium planes and whatever else they could pay for, and now it seems that hype wore off. So since player number went below 1.9, chances there are more paying players than in 1.9 are pretty small.

So WG still pumps money into WoWP.

Block Quote

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........

Raw data from hall of fame shows foot voting out of 2.0.

Block Quote

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.

Really?

https://developers.w..._realm=eu&run=1

WG changed some stats, like WR, accuracy, and turned off player number on server. Common perception for the latter is to hide the size of 2.0 failure.

Former changes may be a result of changes in game mechanics, and some changes to not hurt fragile snowflakes' ego.

Like it could happen after 2.0 fanboy praising lead indicator removal, that you need to think while shooting. And it would be really embarrassing to check, and notice that 1.9 players are more accurate than 2.0. That can't happen now, at least outside WG.

Block Quote

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.

When you compare a number of players that played at least 20 battles in given week of 1.9 that was given in HoF, and in 2.0 given in exactly same way, and latter number is smaller, it means what it means.

 

Ram mechanics was ok, frag for ram wasn't.

Do you think that in early 15 vs 15 human players at least half of them would happily ram each other going head-on at the start of battle if they wouldn't be rewarded?

Now reward stayed and mechanics had been changed to reatrded and frustrating - indeed a big step forward.



BravelyRanAway #42 Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:34 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2528 battles
  • 913
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 13 May 2018 - 06:16 PM, said:

No. Low players is because WoWP 2.0 sucks.

If only it were that simple. Most people that have tried WoWP's in the past 4 years and didn't like it then, won't be back, not because 2.0 is worse but because all they see is WoWP's....not 1.9 or 2.0....just WoWP's.


"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing".G.B.Shaw


eekeeboo #43 Posted 13 May 2018 - 10:42 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 4156 battles
  • 2,206
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postdreambill, on 13 May 2018 - 05:36 PM, said:

 

That's perfectly fine, I don't have to or need to make you find the positive I and others find in 2.0. I only provide an opposite current to which this forum currently has in negative approach to the game. 

 

I loved 1.9, but i likewise enjoy 2.0 for it's own characteristics. There are no stats to show anything right now, until that is provided all that is provided is speculation. 

 

For the criteria on fighting in a circle there's a trick such as baiting ADA out of the circle then killing enemy aircraft in the circle to fast flip the cap and get AA on your side. But attacking a sector solo unless you know how many planes you need and you're far enough away from the enemy is always going to lead to a bad time. 

 

The current AA mechanic again is far better than it used to be when the first person in range was focused until dead by the AA. This was easilby abused by full hp plane tanking damage while the low hp dangerous plane mopped up. 

 

Some times the bot AA is a little squiffy but that is affected what you're flying, what they're flying and of course bots will prioritise targets based on their "primary threat". 

 

But like I said, 2.0 isn't perfect, but I see a lot more potential in this game as it currently is than I did in a long time since probably 1.5 when the changes to mouse controls decimated the player base. 

 

I can't speak for yourself but I enjoy close games, I hate winning all the time, it gets so boring it's unreal. Such as the Albion event when i focused on winning I raised my WR so much after bottoming it out by about 15% doing the bomber assembly daily missions. 

 

The dogfighting is there, you just need to pick your part on the map and play only particular planes. If you want to avoid being focused by bots for example, don't play heavies, for some reason on some maps, bot AI will make its mission to ruin your game. 



eekeeboo #44 Posted 13 May 2018 - 10:51 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 4156 battles
  • 2,206
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 13 May 2018 - 06:16 PM, said:

 

I would ask you for proof, but i know there is none. 

 

The game play is not intuitive if you have played pre 2.0 and if you haven't played any domination or cap the point games before. If you've played any game with cap circles for example even WT you will pick this game up in no point. If you take the time to read the tooltips, hints and take time to work the game out, which i did in about 2 hours then the game is pretty simplistic. Just use tab, use F1 and learn from your mistakes, instead of blaming the game for them. 

 

As for the hype wearing off... true that has an impact and it was that way pre 2.0. But again, until raw data is provided we don't know if players are lower or higher than before. The raw data from HoF isn't reliable though is it? It doesn't show actual player numbers.... I'm not sure how many times I need to state this. 

 

The API was hidden to prevent people using player numbers as an obsession, which as you can see was somewhat quite a feat of foresight. Like I said I hated the mod, I hate(d) player focus with a passion. I despised how players with mods could get an unfair advantage and amount of information from a mod. Good riddance in my opinion and hopefully may it never return. 

 

Accuracy was always one of my favourite stats and I hope it returns, but we will see. There are many things to return and some have been, here's hoping to see a return of those. But I remember having to try to convince nearly 90% of this forum that aim assist was in the game and it was obvious. Finally people acknowledged this and even had to ask the developers this. The accuracy I would say now is quite accurate because evasive maneuvers are no where near as accurate as they were. While also aiming at the plane is a lot easier and better than aiming at a tiny circle that shows you where you're not going to be. As you will know, it was almost pointless anyway when some planes would need to aim further or shorter and mix calibre planes like the 109TL were a nightmare for using the lead indicator. 

 

I remember playing early on, I remember having to deal with people trying to head-on game after game because it was the fastest and most expedient way to gain xp on a plane, let alone the difficulty on people reacting the way they wanted etc. 

 

I prefer the ram mechanics as they are now to what they were, despite the random frustration it is possible to "abuse" the mechanics like the tier 7 P47 vs a 109Z. 

 

 



Dr_Ar_MG #45 Posted 13 May 2018 - 11:03 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1666 battles
  • 326
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 13 May 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

If only it were that simple. Most people that have tried WoWP's in the past 4 years and didn't like it then, won't be back, not because 2.0 is worse but because all they see is WoWP's....not 1.9 or 2.0....just WoWP's.

 

Are you a politician ... man you're really good in ignoring the truth.

70% voted reverse back...game lost many players in one night.. many people still complaining about 2.0...and you say it's not about ...

yes 1.9 WOWP havn't had success till now...it's true but the problem is they changed the bad 1.9 to worse 2.0 and if they backed they hated it more than 1.9.

jakub_czyli_ja #46 Posted 14 May 2018 - 06:56 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2346 battles
  • 9,335
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 13 May 2018 - 10:51 PM, said:

I would ask you for proof, but i know there is none. 

 

The game play is not intuitive if you have played pre 2.0 and if you haven't played any domination or cap the point games before. If you've played any game with cap circles for example even WT you will pick this game up in no point. If you take the time to read the tooltips, hints and take time to work the game out, which i did in about 2 hours then the game is pretty simplistic. Just use tab, use F1 and learn from your mistakes, instead of blaming the game for them.

Proof of what?

Here is for example proof that game is not intuitive: https://www.youtube....h?v=SJiNcnEQkSo

Game is not to be intuitive for somebody with ton of experience who played any game with cap circles for example even WT.

Target of this game is different, you should watch some Kislyi interviews.

Block Quote

As for the hype wearing off... true that has an impact and it was that way pre 2.0. But again, until raw data is provided we don't know if players are lower or higher than before. The raw data from HoF isn't reliable though is it? It doesn't show actual player numbers.... I'm not sure how many times I need to state this.

And again it turns out that number of players playing 20 or more bttles during given week isn't "raw data".

Block Quote

The API was hidden to prevent people using player numbers as an obsession, which as you can see was somewhat quite a feat of foresight.

Yeah, right. Another WG PR department bullshit.

Until 2 days after 2.0 release, that "pbsession" wasn't much bigger than usual.

Block Quote

Like I said I hated the mod, I hate(d) player focus with a passion. I despised how players with mods could get an unfair advantage and amount of information from a mod. Good riddance in my opinion and hopefully may it never return.

I'd say that lack of Hryunmod is rather technical - it may be impossible to mod in-battle UI. There are enough data to mark players anyway.

Block Quote

Accuracy was always one of my favourite stats and I hope it returns, but we will see. There are many things to return and some have been, here's hoping to see a return of those. But I remember having to try to convince nearly 90% of this forum that aim assist was in the game and it was obvious.

Yeah, right along with anniversary missions.

Accuracy was broken because morons in Persha merged accuracy against GT with accuracy against planes, what made them to blatantly lie in some marathon missions, where they wrote "accuracy against aerial targets", while they had no way to measure it, and I did that mission anyway hitting GT to boost accuracy.

Block Quote

While also aiming at the plane is a lot easier and better than aiming at a tiny circle that shows you where you're not going to be. As you will know, it was almost pointless anyway when some planes would need to aim further or shorter and mix calibre planes like the 109TL were a nightmare for using the lead indicator.

Still deflective fire is possible, and still there are various bullet velocities, and 109TL (and A-8 and pretty much any German fighter with various guns) is a nightmare.

If WG wouldn't screw speeds in game (plane, bullets), they wouldn't have these problems. But apparently it's in their culture, to solve problems they made themselves.

Block Quote

I remember playing early on, I remember having to deal with people trying to head-on game after game because it was the fastest and most expedient way to gain xp on a plane, let alone the difficulty on people reacting the way they wanted etc. 

So as I wrote - it was the reward which did the disaster, not ram mechanic itself.

Block Quote

I prefer the ram mechanics as they are now to what they were, despite the random frustration it is possible to "abuse" the mechanics like the tier 7 P47 vs a 109Z. 

Nice picture of 2.0 supporter - "I like to abuse". Same as in 1.9.

 



BravelyRanAway #47 Posted 14 May 2018 - 08:43 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2528 battles
  • 913
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostDr_Ar_MG, on 13 May 2018 - 11:03 PM, said:

 

Are you a politician ... man you're really good in ignoring the truth.

70% voted reverse back...game lost many players in one night.. many people still complaining about 2.0...and you say it's not about ...

yes 1.9 WOWP havn't had success till now...it's true but the problem is they changed the bad 1.9 to worse 2.0 and if they backed they hated it more than 1.9.

If anyone's a politician....it's you and a poor one at that.

Your taking the results of a poll made primarily by existing 1.9 players who frequent the forum most with a hate for 2.0 as representing the entire player base......you really are laughable.

Yes, the numbers are player numbers are poor but getting the old players of 1.9 back will not save the game. If it could, it would never have changed to 2.0 in the first place. So you keep on posting those useless weekly numbers for 2.0 as if it means something, it gives me a chuckle everytime you update it. You ignore four years of failure.....lol. WG couldn't care less about your numbers thread, what they care about is income and if 2.0 fails it will go the way of 1.9 and that will be the end of it.


"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing".G.B.Shaw


Horcan #48 Posted 14 May 2018 - 09:07 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 3105 battles
  • 608
  • [_VI_] _VI_
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I dont understand why you people insist in comparing 1.9 to 2.0 numbers. Most of people that play 2.0 and might or might not enjoy it were also included in the people that played 1.9. So comparing 5k in 1.9 to 4k in 2.0 is irrelevant. You can say that the game is worse by losing 1k players, or you can say that 4k think the change was good option and they were playing 1.9 waiting for a change. All this walls of text are just personal opinions, nobody but myself can say why i played this game, what i like or what i dont, posts of people that think that their opinion is general are pointless. Not that any of the devs care.

Edited by Horcan, 14 May 2018 - 09:09 AM.


jss78 #49 Posted 14 May 2018 - 02:18 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1699 battles
  • 78
  • Member since:
    05-08-2016

Hm, I started with this game only after 2.0 landed. 

 

IMO, if anything this game is easy to get into, and much more "noob-friendly" than Warships or Tanks. The economy is very friendly and grind minimal for a game of this type.

 

As far as player count, and how this affects new players, it's a double-edged sword. With the air-defence fighters and the bots in the enemy combat group, there are lots of "soft" targets which gives the new player these nice feelings of success, which are much harder to come by in Tanks or Warships.

 

But I strongly feel it makes winning more difficult for a new player. In World of Warships, the worst of players can expect to have a 40% win rate, because with 12 humans per team the influence of any one guy is limited. In WoWP, and especially in those late-night games with just a couple humans per side -- an experienced player against 1 novice human and 11 bots can carry the game 90% of the time.

 

Technical issues aside, I think it's a fun game for what it is. Again, cannot compare to 1.9. My main complaints are purely technical, especially the miserable frame rates I have to endure compared to competing games.


Edited by jss78, 14 May 2018 - 06:19 PM.


BiBaBummsebiene #50 Posted 14 May 2018 - 03:00 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1005 battles
  • 474
  • [JG26] JG26
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

So here are my 2 cents:

Dr. and Bravely: in my eyes u r talking both about the same issue and... agree with each others, one stopped fighting windmills, one is still fighting windmills.

eekeeboo: there is hardly no land for 2.0 lovers in this forum, just for your own sake: leave them alone. Writing with them just make them hate 2.0 more.

 

About the game:

I started in 2013 and I had a hard time learning this game. It wasn't very "noob-friendly". I kept fighting and learnt the mechanics. Let's say I wasn't that bad at the end and played 5+ games a day. In those days I was looking at the forum about once a month. That's probably why 2.0 hit me like a truck. At the beginning I was pretty angry about the game all over, even with an 80% winrate at the start. I was playing on and like eekeeboo said: it has it's own characteristics and pros... but still enough cons we can all read in multiple threats now. Currently it's a "ok let's play 2-3 games that's enough. It's not encouraging to play on. I don't want to kill 30 planes because the game wants to reward me. I don't want respawn because it's taking away the feeling of doing sth usefull. Flying circles, base after base, plane after plane... oh dead.. respawn.. ok do the same again. I know why there is this mechanic as it's very error-tolerant/"newby-friendly". But it's not in any kind (for me) rewarding. I see no real use. Without respawn all actions are game changer.

In my eyes the biggest fault of WG was to completely extinguish all mechanics and parts of 1.X. I think they believe it failed, but there were pretty good parts too. The game mode (we could have both for old and new players), the sound (I loved the sounds, now u can't even hear if u get shot), characteristics of planes (F7F hardly equals 109Z in all stats, that makes no sense), the hitboxes for big guns (30mm+; some planes are extremly hard to play e.g. Ta 183/Fw 252; 262 and 262 HG,...).

And finally they over nerfed the heavys a bit in my eyes. Give them back the skies as the main fight is at mid and low altitude anyway.

All the said things in 2.0 engine, aim-style, conquest,... etc. I think that would have made WoWp successfull.

Instead of waiting for content, now we kinda creep and hope for stabilization and optimization patches.:angry:

 

Greetings,

BiBa


[JG26] Jagdgeschwader 26

[-ELBE] Heimatschutzstaffel

wenn wir Ein' saufen dann steh ich für zwei, und geht es ans Sterben......ICH bin dabei


dreambill #51 Posted 14 May 2018 - 04:04 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1744 battles
  • 577
  • [GR-12] GR-12
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View PostBiBaBummsebiene, on 14 May 2018 - 03:00 PM, said:

Currently it's a "ok let's play 2-3 games that's enough. It's not encouraging to play on. I don't want to kill 30 planes because the game wants to reward me. I don't want respawn because it's taking away the feeling of doing sth usefull. Flying circles, base after base, plane after plane... oh dead.. respawn.. ok do the same again. I know why there is this mechanic as it's very error-tolerant/"newby-friendly". But it's not in any kind (for me) rewarding. I see no real use. Without respawn all actions are game changer.

In my eyes the biggest fault of WG was to completely extinguish all mechanics and parts of 1.X. I think they believe it failed, but there were pretty good parts too. The game mode (we could have both for old and new players), the sound (I loved the sounds, now u can't even hear if u get shot), characteristics of planes (F7F hardly equals 109Z in all stats, that makes no sense), the hitboxes for big guns (30mm+; some planes are extremly hard to play e.g. Ta 183/Fw 252; 262 and 262 HG,...).

And finally they over nerfed the heavys a bit in my eyes.

You speak for me too m8!



jakub_czyli_ja #52 Posted 14 May 2018 - 04:35 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2346 battles
  • 9,335
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 14 May 2018 - 08:43 AM, said:

If anyone's a politician....it's you and a poor one at that.

Your taking the results of a poll made primarily by existing 1.9 players who frequent the forum most with a hate for 2.0 as representing the entire player base......you really are laughable.

Yes, the numbers are player numbers are poor but getting the old players of 1.9 back will not save the game. If it could, it would never have changed to 2.0 in the first place. So you keep on posting those useless weekly numbers for 2.0 as if it means something, it gives me a chuckle everytime you update it. You ignore four years of failure.....lol. WG couldn't care less about your numbers thread, what they care about is income and if 2.0 fails it will go the way of 1.9 and that will be the end of it.

And what the road of 1.9 is? I mean - 1.x had steady playerbase drop to a level of 5775 players having 20 battles during a week, and had average of 7394 of such players.

2.0 already touched less than 5k weekly players, and average is above 1.9's only because there were huge events after release. So what is left on that road that 1.9 scored and 2.0 not yet?



eekeeboo #53 Posted 14 May 2018 - 05:15 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 4156 battles
  • 2,206
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 14 May 2018 - 06:56 AM, said:

 

I'd say that lack of Hryunmod is rather technical - it may be impossible to mod in-battle UI. There are enough data to mark players anyway.

Yeah, right along with anniversary missions.

Accuracy was broken because morons in Persha merged accuracy against GT with accuracy against planes, what made them to blatantly lie in some marathon missions, where they wrote "accuracy against aerial targets", while they had no way to measure it, and I did that mission anyway hitting GT to boost accuracy.

Still deflective fire is possible, and still there are various bullet velocities, and 109TL (and A-8 and pretty much any German fighter with various guns) is a nightmare.

If WG wouldn't screw speeds in game (plane, bullets), they wouldn't have these problems. But apparently it's in their culture, to solve problems they made themselves.

So as I wrote - it was the reward which did the disaster, not ram mechanic itself.

Nice picture of 2.0 supporter - "I like to abuse". Same as in 1.9.

 

 

I watched the interviews, clearly you didn't because of what he said you are arguing against. As for intuitive, they are intuitive, just because it's not intuitive to everyone, doesn't change that.... 

 

Because you compare the date you can gather from HoF against data that counted EVERY single player logging in and out no matter the amount of time played or battles played. Like I have said repeatedly it's flawed comparison, you should know this as you say you know data very well. 

 

The API was stopped on release.... so, your comment is flawed again. You call PR when it disagrees with you and fact when it agrees with you, confirmation bias much?

 

Hyrunomod wasn't about marking players and bots only. It was ranking players and enabling the enemy to single you out and chase you down in the days when you couldn't respawn and you wasted a x5 being chased by everyone under the sun! Let alone the plane status, boost status, speed and altitude you could see when locking onto a plane as well as everything else, it was simply TOO much. 

 

Proof on WG ruining your accuracy benefits? Or perhaps they felt it was a superfluous stat that could be manipulated for missions anyway like the 30% accuracy, you shot a couple of planes and then hit GT with your guns and hey presto 60% accuracy. 

 

It's good to have different velocities and being able to use what's right to get the best out of the plane! 

 

AS for the the "I like to abuse" that's a mechanic from 1.9... just saying. 

 



eekeeboo #54 Posted 14 May 2018 - 05:51 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 4156 battles
  • 2,206
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBiBaBummsebiene, on 14 May 2018 - 03:00 PM, said:

So here are my 2 cents:

Dr. and Bravely: in my eyes u r talking both about the same issue and... agree with each others, one stopped fighting windmills, one is still fighting windmills.

eekeeboo: there is hardly no land for 2.0 lovers in this forum, just for your own sake: leave them alone. Writing with them just make them hate 2.0 more.

 

About the game:

I started in 2013 and I had a hard time learning this game. It wasn't very "noob-friendly". I kept fighting and learnt the mechanics. Let's say I wasn't that bad at the end and played 5+ games a day. In those days I was looking at the forum about once a month. That's probably why 2.0 hit me like a truck. At the beginning I was pretty angry about the game all over, even with an 80% winrate at the start. I was playing on and like eekeeboo said: it has it's own characteristics and pros... but still enough cons we can all read in multiple threats now. Currently it's a "ok let's play 2-3 games that's enough. It's not encouraging to play on. I don't want to kill 30 planes because the game wants to reward me. I don't want respawn because it's taking away the feeling of doing sth usefull. Flying circles, base after base, plane after plane... oh dead.. respawn.. ok do the same again. I know why there is this mechanic as it's very error-tolerant/"newby-friendly". But it's not in any kind (for me) rewarding. I see no real use. Without respawn all actions are game changer.

In my eyes the biggest fault of WG was to completely extinguish all mechanics and parts of 1.X. I think they believe it failed, but there were pretty good parts too. The game mode (we could have both for old and new players), the sound (I loved the sounds, now u can't even hear if u get shot), characteristics of planes (F7F hardly equals 109Z in all stats, that makes no sense), the hitboxes for big guns (30mm+; some planes are extremly hard to play e.g. Ta 183/Fw 252; 262 and 262 HG,...).

And finally they over nerfed the heavys a bit in my eyes. Give them back the skies as the main fight is at mid and low altitude anyway.

All the said things in 2.0 engine, aim-style, conquest,... etc. I think that would have made WoWp successfull.

Instead of waiting for content, now we kinda creep and hope for stabilization and optimization patches.:angry:

 

Greetings,

BiBa

 

I'm not saying there's no land for 2.0 lovers, I just want more positivity and pro-voices rather than the continuous negative I see lately. I understand that there's an element of futility in trying to counter this, but someone has to. 

BravelyRanAway #55 Posted 14 May 2018 - 08:01 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 2528 battles
  • 913
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 14 May 2018 - 04:35 PM, said:

And what the road of 1.9 is? I mean - 1.x had steady playerbase drop to a level of 5775 players having 20 battles during a week, and had average of 7394 of such players.

2.0 already touched less than 5k weekly players, and average is above 1.9's only because there were huge events after release. So what is left on that road that 1.9 scored and 2.0 not yet?

The player numbers don't mean a damn, you're just punching shadows. it's all about the income. Why can't you guys understand this simple concept?


"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing".G.B.Shaw


Dr_Ar_MG #56 Posted 14 May 2018 - 09:09 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1666 battles
  • 326
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View PostBiBaBummsebiene, on 14 May 2018 - 03:00 PM, said:

Spoiler

 

I Love this post

Dr_Ar_MG #57 Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:24 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1666 battles
  • 326
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 14 May 2018 - 08:43 AM, said:

If anyone's a politician....it's you and a poor one at that.

thank you.... but I have to say you're a perfect politician

Block Quote

Your taking the results of a poll made primarily by existing 1.9 players who frequent the forum most with a hate for 2.0 as representing the entire player base......you really are laughable.

Yes, the numbers are player numbers are poor but getting the old players of 1.9 back will not save the game. If it could, it would never have changed to 2.0 in the first place. So you keep on posting those useless weekly numbers for 2.0 as if it means something, it gives me a chuckle everytime you update it. You ignore four years of failure....

 back to 1.9 is a bigger mistake than 2.0... I don't say back to 1.9 I said the 1.9 was bad and 2.0 is worse... and trying force them to make a better game.

I never ignored the four years of failure... I don't want to another 4 years of fauilure.

 

2.0 has low population, less than 1.9, half ! it's a fact. and no matter what's the reason.ok suppose I'm completely wrong 100% and you are right...BUT still the good perfect amazing super 2.0 has no success, and they must change it. the f***ing conquest mode was not successful.

Block Quote

 .lol. WG couldn't care less about your numbers thread,

 I'm not trying to show numbers to WG. they know the exact numbers and stats with all details better than me. I showed the numbers to the guys who likes 2.0 and think they are not alone, to who think everybody loves 2.0.truth is 1.9 has 8000 players weekly, don't know the total number but it's at least 8000 and 70% doesn't like it, they prefer the bad 1.9 than crappy 2.0

Block Quote

 The player numbers don't mean a damn, you're just punching shadows. it's all about the income. Why can't you guys understand this simple concept?

:facepalm:

it's all about incomes and income depends on the customers and more customers means more money and less customers means less money.

they sell same product ! yes if they replace the fake unreal airplanes with real diamonds they could have more income with 10 customers. but for a same game now 70% of players hate it, and believe you don't need to test something to all people of the world to know the result. when 70% of random people who searched airplane games and tried 1.9 do not like it... when WG has the players of WOT and WOSh but they don't play WOWP.. it means less player. less likes, less shop, less money.

 

any way how do you know that 2.0 has more income than 1.9 ??

 

Block Quote

 what they care about is income and if 2.0 fails it will go the way of 1.9 and that will be the end of it.

 this is what I said... they don't care us, they do every kind of cheat to have more income... anyway if they just think just about the money... they should make WOWP (wow pornstars) or WORR (world of REDR00MS) and sell it to the rich people.


Edited by Dr_Ar_MG, 14 May 2018 - 10:37 PM.


Dr_Ar_MG #58 Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:52 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1666 battles
  • 326
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View Posteekeeboo, on 14 May 2018 - 05:15 PM, said:

Because you compare the date you can gather from HoF against data that counted EVERY single player logging in and out no matter the amount of time played or battles played. Like I have said repeatedly it's flawed comparison, you should know this as you say you know data very well.

the data in HOF contains the players with + 5 battles but I added a good fair maximum for players with less 4 battles.and yes it has a little error. man the number of 2.0 is half of the 1.9 ! do you think if we subtract the guys in 1.9 who just logged in game and left and add fix the error of 2.0 .. it could cover the gap between 1.9 and 2.0 ? 1.9 had 2 times more players than 2.0!! c'mon

 

anyway, what about comparing 2.0 vs 2.0, compering the numbers of 2.0 in the past with the number now ?? how can you explain the reduction of the numbers...the only possible is that. maybe before 2.0 had more players with +5 battles now game has more players but they play 4 battles and less. even this BS theory can't save the 2.0 ! becasue it means players now play less time and means game is boring for them.



Killtech #59 Posted 14 May 2018 - 11:01 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1887 battles
  • 337
  • [FLOG] FLOG
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

so the debate continues? i really wonder what's in store for WoWp. WG redesigned the game and made it into something else entirely with 2.0 but they didn't do much to catch the attention of new players and the old ones certainly don't enjoy this different game then the one they made them stay. i understand that WG doesn't want to attract too much new players until they are finished reworking the game since they know well from experience that each change costs a little portion of the playerbase... but they do need to pick up the pace here or this bird will come crashing down soon.

 

View PostBiBaBummsebiene, on 14 May 2018 - 03:00 PM, said:

I don't want to kill 30 planes because the game wants to reward me. I don't want respawn because it's taking away the feeling of doing sth usefull. Flying circles, base after base, plane after plane... oh dead.. respawn.. ok do the same again. I know why there is this mechanic as it's very error-tolerant/"newby-friendly". But it's not in any kind (for me) rewarding. I see no real use. Without respawn all actions are game changer.

 

i don't think this mechanic is so much about newby-friendliness. i find it to be even less error tolerant then 1.9 was (when it comes down to winning) - but not so much on the flying skills part but rather on the strategical level. then again for a new player that just wants to fly around and shoot stuff it will be much a friendlier start if they don't mind checking their win rate.

 

2.0 made ground targets and planes designed to target them an actual part of the gameplay. multi-roles and GAA or anything equipped with ordinance in general didn't feel useful at all in 1.9. now they actually play their part. but it came at the cost of a different gameplay where the air combat has become just one aspect of the game and not its entire focus. 

 

View PostDr_Ar_MG, on 14 May 2018 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'm not trying to show numbers to WG. they know the exact numbers and stats with all details better than me. I showed the numbers to the guys who likes 2.0 and think they are not alone, to who think everybody loves 2.0.truth is 1.9 has 8000 players weekly, don't know the total number but it's at least 8000 and 70% doesn't like it, they prefer the bad 1.9 than crappy 2.0

 

it's a different game that needs different type of players to enjoy it. but since it's still mostly the the old players don't expect the numbers to go anywhere else then down. WG knew that so they stopped making player numbers public. that isn't to say that 2.0 isn't crappy. it is since it is more like an alpha stage now and it lost all the little polish 1.9 had build up over time. but at least in its core it is a design that isn't broken for some classes to begin with and i can see it work given polish and a lot of balance tuning (not just planes). question is will WG get it far enough to feel comfortable to invest money in attracting new players to give it a try. 


Edited by Killtech, 14 May 2018 - 11:05 PM.


eekeeboo #60 Posted 15 May 2018 - 12:37 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 4156 battles
  • 2,206
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostDr_Ar_MG, on 14 May 2018 - 10:52 PM, said:

 

 

And as soon as you said "the data in HOF contains the players with + 5 battles but I added a good fair maximum for players with less 4 battles"

 

It's not accurate then. As soon as it's not accurate you have invalid data. You simply cannot expect people with a modicum of intelligence and a desire to not be lead on to take your word for it on the numbers. It's unreasonable to use accurate numbers vs non accurate. That's before even talking about using the same way of measuring the samples! 

 

Comparing 2.0 with 2.0, fine go ahead you still are using guesstimated numbers, they're simply invalid you're using guessed values and manipulated values even if given a Standard deviation or an alpha error value that is the same. It's still not valid. 

 

Now if you said "I feel" then that's fine, that's your opinion. When you say "The data and numbers show." They do not, they show what someone wants them to show as soon as you start changing, altering and in any way manipulating them. That's the basis of data handling. 2.0 will happen whatever may, but spamming the same inaccurate numbers expecting me to believe in them simply won't work. I would be more than happy to throw the amount of data analysis principles and ways to do it at if you you'd like. But we both know it would be an exercise in futility. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users