Jump to content


Well...


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

klbergmen #61 Posted 25 June 2018 - 08:23 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 2565 battles
  • 69
  • [JV44] JV44
  • Member since:
    08-13-2014

I tested WOWP after launch and came back after 2.0. So I don't know 1.9.

In 1.9 the behaviour of planes was different, it was more realistic, right ? Then the problem might be that is was different code, that you cannot run 1.9 and 2.0 on he same server. So it might be more effort to have 1.9 and 2.0 running in parallel than to switch to attrition mode and back.

Also you would have to change two code bases for further updates like now after 2.0.5.

I guess they are not willing to do that.



eekeeboo #62 Posted 25 June 2018 - 08:24 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posthoughtonbee, on 25 June 2018 - 07:20 AM, said:

 

I apologise, comment deleted (forum wouldn't let me post on this thread last night?!!).

 

I've deleted it for you. Just to give you a heads up. 

 

For others: 

 

As for comments about the performance of the number of players in 2.0. I can't give you numbers, but there are more in 2.0 than 1.9. I know you will ask for proof and evidence and numbers. I am not at liberty to share those, you can either take my word for it, or not. But I felt it a good idea to point this out if you will listen. 



Isoruku_Yamamoto #63 Posted 25 June 2018 - 09:12 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1375 battles
  • 194
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View Posteekeeboo, on 25 June 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

 

I've deleted it for you. Just to give you a heads up. 

 

For others: 

 

As for comments about the performance of the number of players in 2.0. I can't give you numbers, but there are more in 2.0 than 1.9. I know you will ask for proof and evidence and numbers. I am not at liberty to share those, you can either take my word for it, or not. But I felt it a good idea to point this out if you will listen. 

 

I think its because me and two friends started playing after 2.0. Us three make the difference, im certain XD

dreambill #64 Posted 25 June 2018 - 02:33 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1104 battles
  • 436
  • [GR-12] GR-12
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 25 June 2018 - 08:24 AM, said:

As for comments about the performance of the number of players in 2.0. I can't give you numbers, but there are more in 2.0 than 1.9. I know you will ask for proof and evidence and numbers. I am not at liberty to share those, you can either take my word for it, or not. But I felt it a good idea to point this out if you will listen. 

 

I believe you eekee, even if that is translated to 1 more player than before.

Cause the numbers in battles and waiting time are as it used to be in V1.9 (Few more in low - mid tiers, Less in high tiers)

Why really WG doesn't share the numbers ?

 



chief_de_wrecker #65 Posted 25 June 2018 - 02:42 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Conquest Member
  • 1350 battles
  • 37
  • [A_D_C] A_D_C
  • Member since:
    04-30-2016
What I dont understand is why suddenly 'Online players' & Leader board options for last 4 weeks, 7 days, 1 day etc. has suddenly become classified documents?

eekeeboo #66 Posted 25 June 2018 - 07:35 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
They're not suddenly classified documents. They've been chosen to refrain from providing those numbers readily to avoid such discussions as these, whereby we would have weekly "OMG look at numbers!" threads. 

MBCLK320 #67 Posted 26 June 2018 - 08:35 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Conquest Member
  • 28 battles
  • 26
  • [A_D_C] A_D_C
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 25 June 2018 - 07:35 PM, said:

They're not suddenly classified documents. They've been chosen to refrain from providing those numbers readily to avoid such discussions as these, whereby we would have weekly "OMG look at numbers!" threads. 

 

Those would be “we told you so!” threads. Hiding numbers just proves that WG took a step into wrong direction by killing off 1.9 instead of adding 2.0 to it. By doing so WOWP’s lost its core players and gained more less casual playerbase (with some old players still devoted to the project). If the number where sky high- WG would proudly flutter the flag, saying “you see…we did it!”.  If only WG would not be so stubborn & just tried to implement both versions, maybe they would not be ashamed to show online numbers once more.



eekeeboo #68 Posted 26 June 2018 - 08:40 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMBCLK320, on 26 June 2018 - 08:35 AM, said:

 

Those would be “we told you so!” threads. Hiding numbers just proves that WG took a step into wrong direction by killing off 1.9 instead of adding 2.0 to it. By doing so WOWP’s lost its core players and gained more less casual playerbase (with some old players still devoted to the project). If the number where sky high- WG would proudly flutter the flag, saying “you see…we did it!”.  If only WG would not be so stubborn & just tried to implement both versions, maybe they would not be ashamed to show online numbers once more.

 

I don't think there's any serious person who can say 1.9 was successful. And the threads weren't the "we told you so!" The threads included people abusing queue times and players online for certain missions and competitions waiting for quiet moments. Or people using it to compare between WT and WoWP and saying one is better than the other etc. It was all rather superfluous. 

 

It's not about being too stubborn, it's about making choices and changes to the whole game, the engine and the methods used. You can't have 2 different game modes so fundamentally different in the same game because you split the queues up so much. It adds a layer of confusion. Just look at historical game mode in WoT and how that quickly died down. 

 

The reason for showing numbers wasn't about shame or bragging. It was a default stance always done. The decision was made to not show them to prevent discussions. 



chief_de_wrecker #69 Posted 26 June 2018 - 02:47 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Conquest Member
  • 1350 battles
  • 37
  • [A_D_C] A_D_C
  • Member since:
    04-30-2016

View Posteekeeboo, on 25 June 2018 - 07:35 PM, said:

They're not suddenly classified documents. They've been chosen to refrain from providing those numbers readily to avoid such discussions as these, whereby we would have weekly "OMG look at numbers!" threads. 

 

What else would WG block to prevent players from discussing an issue?...does that violate EULA or some forum rule?

And to what extent is WG going to block any other game feature or even some plane:teethhappy: whose discussion WG is not comfortable with & might seem like its criticism?... reminds me of despotism:hiding:...

 

And I have another question if you could answer... why is In-battle plane comparison feature done away with?

 

Cheers

 



dreambill #70 Posted 26 June 2018 - 03:47 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1104 battles
  • 436
  • [GR-12] GR-12
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 26 June 2018 - 08:40 AM, said:

 

I don't think there's any serious person who can say 1.9 was successful. And the threads weren't the "we told you so!" The threads included people abusing queue times and players online for certain missions and competitions waiting for quiet moments. Or people using it to compare between WT and WoWP and saying one is better than the other etc. It was all rather superfluous. 

Is there a serious person that says V2.0 is successful so far ?

 

It's not about being too stubborn, it's about making choices and changes to the whole game, the engine and the methods used. You can't have 2 different game modes so fundamentally different in the same game because you split the queues up so much. It adds a layer of confusion. Just look at historical game mode in WoT and how that quickly died down.

So you drop your playerbase, to replace it with another playerbase about the same size.

Still trying to find the benefit from this, apart from some naive new players that can be milked for a sort period, until they realize the reality about the game.

If that is true, it is disrespectful from WGs side

 

The reason for showing numbers wasn't about shame or bragging. It was a default stance always done. The decision was made to not show them to prevent discussions. 

And you achieved this? Old players left can always tell, by participating in the game if there is more people than before, and its clear so far that there aren't ( You said there are, but if so, I'm sure there aren't A LOT more, in fact there aren't  even 2x players than before for sure)

and that IS an open discussion as to how "clever" and "Justified" was all this change, instead of a more planned and careful evolution of the old game towards here.

By avoiding showing the results and failure, people who designed and organized all this switch from one game to another (the same responsible for V1.9 evolution?), are keeping their places in the company, which in my eyes means no good for the future of the game.

 


Edited by dreambill, 26 June 2018 - 03:50 PM.


eekeeboo #71 Posted 26 June 2018 - 06:46 PM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postchief_de_wrecker, on 26 June 2018 - 02:47 PM, said:

 

 

If you want to know what WG would do to prevent certain discussions, by all means look at the forum rules :P

 

Criticism and constructive feedback are welcome. Look at the feedback threads, if you made it that far. On the other hand, endless threads of abuse and pointless discussions about superfluous stats... Not so much. 

 

The in-game plane comparison, if you haven't read already in multiple threads, was removed to be reworked while the in-game system and comparison system with changes to plane stats also happened. I'm sure you noticed this ;) 

 

View Postdreambill, on 26 June 2018 - 03:47 PM, said:

 

 

There's actually a few people who have said 2.0 was/is a success and that it performs much better than the previous iteration that was 1.9. 

 

None of the player-base were "dropped". Everyone is welcome to keep playing, the same people are welcome to play their own accounts with the same items in there, that there were before. You are then projecting something onto the product that hasn't even been hinted at either. That is purely down to your own insinuation. Oddly enough. 

 

"Old players" also say that there were 15k people online at peak times, old players say that the old days were glory and we had millions of players. Older players try to tell me they would rofl-stomp every player in 2.0 and that I don't know what I'm talking about. Just because they are "old-players" doesn't mean they are always right. 

 

As for stats and figures, of course they're known within the company and presented to the relevant people..... I'm not sure how you feel making all that public would change the way a company feels about their product being profitable or not. 

 

It is all currently, he said, she said and yet. When people tell me "GAA are weakest class don't have impact" a few weeks later people realised they weren't and said they were OP. There are plenty examples of this, where people who cry for 1.9 return, haven't even attempted to log into 2.0. 

 



zen_monk_ #72 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:00 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posteekeeboo, on 26 June 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

"Old players" also say that there were 15k people online at peak times, old players say that the old days were glory and we had millions of players. Older players try to tell me they would rofl-stomp every player in 2.0 and that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

AFAIK, I'm the oldest player here.

 

None of those statements are true.

 



dreambill #73 Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:37 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1104 battles
  • 436
  • [GR-12] GR-12
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 26 June 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

There's actually a few people who have said 2.0 was/is a success and that it performs much better than the previous iteration that was 1.9.

That's the problem -a few- not -a lot- as it supposed to be when killing a game for a different one

 

None of the player-base were "dropped". Everyone is welcome to keep playing, the same people are welcome to play their own accounts with the same items in there, that there were before.

Yes but at a different game, You by a ferrari to drive at a race track, the race track is deleted and afterwards you are welcome to drive it in a motocross track?

You are then projecting something onto the product that hasn't even been hinted at either. That is purely down to your own insinuation. Oddly enough.

Unfortunately all recent moves from WG in selling crates of materials - tokens - tier 9 premiums for ridiculous prices that accompany the V2.0 and its updates points this way IMHO

 

"Old players" also say that there were 15k people online at peak times, old players say that the old days were glory and we had millions of players. Older players try to tell me they would rofl-stomp every player in 2.0 and that I don't know what I'm talking about. Just because they are "old-players" doesn't mean they are always right.

I agree and never said that old players are always right

 

As for stats and figures, of course they're known within the company and presented to the relevant people..... I'm not sure how you feel making all that public would change the way a company feels about their product being profitable or not.

Hiding them, creates a feeling (to me) that WG tries to sell lies to players (together with crates tokens etc)

 

It is all currently, he said, she said and yet. When people tell me "GAA are weakest class don't have impact" a few weeks later people realised they weren't and said they were OP. There are plenty examples of this, where people who cry for 1.9 return, haven't even attempted to log into 2.0. 

As a lot of people voting and expressing their admiration for change to V2.0, 8 months ago in forums, haven't played more than 50 battles so far in it.

 

Look eekee, i don't want to drug this conversation.

I have no problem with V2.0 existence since there are people like it.

I have problem with deletion of V1.9 were there was equal amount of people who liked it (me among them)

And never said it was perfect. Improvements needed, as is the case now.

The way WG handled all this process was POOR to say it very politely, firstly by invited us to test a new MODE for the game, not a new GAME.

Then ignoring the overwhelmingly negative feedback he received (at least through forums that I can be aware of) to finally kill the old game for the shake of V2.0

For me BOTH modes should be present, and anything trying to persuade people that V1.9 was worst than V2.0 doesn't show up so far. It was simply DIFFERENT

 


Edited by dreambill, 26 June 2018 - 08:54 PM.


dreambill #74 Posted 26 June 2018 - 08:51 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1104 battles
  • 436
  • [GR-12] GR-12
  • Member since:
    07-25-2013

View Posteekeeboo, on 26 June 2018 - 08:40 AM, said:

It's not about being too stubborn, it's about making choices and changes to the whole game, the engine and the methods used. You can't have 2 different game modes so fundamentally different in the same game because you split the queues up so much. It adds a layer of confusion. Just look at historical game mode in WoT and how that quickly died down.

 

The correct way was for WG to had left both modes and wait until the most unpopular slowly dies.

But imagine if this would be the new mode, what it will meant for those suggesting and implemented it.

The absence of direct comparison, secure the jobs of the V2.0 designers, not the splitting of player base.

After all, if they were so certain about conquest being the right way, what splitting would have been? Only the stubborn "old" players (who mostly left) would had continue playing it. Or not?

 



eekeeboo #75 Posted 27 June 2018 - 07:55 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postdreambill, on 26 June 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

 

 

Replies to text in quote: 

Spoiler

 

Answer to post text and points made. 

Spoiler

 

I would like to highlight, I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm merely trying to give you the other side/perspective to your points and helping you to understand the decisions as much as possible. 



Spuggy #76 Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:03 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1451 battles
  • 156
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Look.

 

 

2.0 is a great model for RANDOM BATTLES.

 

 

I think the 1.9 version would be a great concept for CLAN BATTLES.



zen_monk_ #77 Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:10 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 2420 battles
  • 517
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

2.x and respawning finally made this an enjoyable game. I would never ever go back to only 1.x rules.

 

If they can't integrate both (and you stated the logical reasons why) then good riddance to 1.x and I'm perfectly happy with that. Let's forget this whole nonsense and focus on how 2.x can be even more enjoyable.

 

As for Spuggy's "clan battles on 1.x principles" idea, sounds great. A clan battle mode with no bots, only players with one life. 2 vs 2, 5 vs 5, whatever.

 

We are in 2.x, let's accept it and move on. It's about time.



Isoruku_Yamamoto #78 Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:25 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1375 battles
  • 194
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View Postzen_monk_, on 27 June 2018 - 08:10 AM, said:

2.x and respawning finally made this an enjoyable game. I would never ever go back to only 1.x rules.

 

If they can't integrate both (and you stated the logical reasons why) then good riddance to 1.x and I'm perfectly happy with that. Let's forget this whole nonsense and focus on how 2.x can be even more enjoyable.

 

As for Spuggy's "clan battles on 1.x principles" idea, sounds great. A clan battle mode with no bots, only players with one life. 2 vs 2, 5 vs 5, whatever.

 

We are in 2.x, let's accept it and move on. It's about time.

 

Actually 2 vs 2 clan battles would be a fine idea for WoWP. Just make the progression system based on a combination of battles and victories, such that ppl who win a lot need far less battles to progress, while ppl who lose all can still get somewhere if they are dedicated enough. 
 

But i really think 2 vs 2 is the perfect format for WoWP, since you simply won't be able to get far larger teams to work (also, 2 is enough to get the PvE working). 

 

@Eekeeboo can we please, please work out a format for clan battles? 
Im sure zen_monk_ and me can come up with something you'll be okay with XD and we'd like to have a clan battle like thingy



eekeeboo #79 Posted 27 June 2018 - 08:52 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 3718 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

The idea of a "death match" mode or "hardcore" mode is something to think about. But bare in mind that it has to be a popular request, and by many palyers that also suits the game. 

 

For instance a pure dog-fighting mode would be nice, but what would you do with the bombers and GAA classes? How would/could you justify their exclusion/inclusion. 

 

I have my own ideas for a game mode that would suit not only clan battles but tournament play more too. Or at least create a map with no sectors on it and have attrition style rules where you have to manage your resources carefully, creating a training room and testing it out there etc. 

 

May I suggest you create a thread about this and as long as it stays on topic and garners enough interest I can then pass this onto the developers :) 



Homer_J #80 Posted 04 July 2018 - 09:55 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 515 battles
  • 162
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postdreambill, on 22 June 2018 - 05:42 PM, said:

And now that they do what ever they want, the interest is back to a bigger playerbase ?

 

Well I was quite enjoying 2.0, I was looking forward to the Hawker line being expanded but just reading about the changes killed off my interest.

 

I enjoyed beta but on release they screwed the balance so if you weren't flying a heavy boom and zooming from maximum altitude then you may as well not bother.  They tried to fix that but by then player numbers had dropped so much that if you weren't in a coordinated flight then you were not going to have any fun, and I'm not convinced those seal clubbing flights were having much either.

 

2.0 made the game playable for random bobs like me but I cba with these overcomplicated upgrades.  If I do play I'll just sell the equipment in my depot and play the planes nekkid.  I'll only be up against bots anyway so what does it matter.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users