86 replies to this topic

[Jonagus]

It is dificult to make sense of this game when the game give results like this only 2 human players in one side it was me Jonagus in the other team "Moeppen8I" checking the personal points made one by one in both teams the figures on the left column are biger than in the right column, every player on the left team make more points that in the rigth team included me but the team of the left column lose the match.

Now someone will arrive with an explanation of waht is imposible to be explained. This version of the game is simple crap, that is the explanation of everything.

 

Jonagus.

 

Edited by Jonagus, 11 July 2018 - 03:06 PM.

[eekeeboo]

Without a replay to give you more details, the game is more than just scoring a lot of points, it's about scoring them in the right places. But that's just a suspicion as you get a lot of points for killing more small targets or lots of GT in a zone without capping. But the slower you cap the worse it is for your team. 

[Jonagus]

eekeeboo, on 11 July 2018 - 03:08 PM, said:

Without a replay to give you more details, the game is more than just scoring a lot of points, it's about scoring them in the right places. But that's just a suspicion as you get a lot of points for killing more small targets or lots of GT in a zone without capping. But the slower you cap the worse it is for your team. 

 

I know eekeeboo, I can repeat the same with a bunch of flowers in my [edited]and win, the point is this game in this present version no make sense.

 

Jonagus

[Horcan]

For as long as this game has bots, all games can be considered rigged, since some algorithm in there decide what level of bots each team have, you may fight vs a bot that pursue you relentless and shoot at you with insane accuracy ( even overall in the game he does crap, like 2k points ) while you may see in your team after you die for good bots that cant hit crapwhile firing at a stright line target. They probably made the bots like this to have some balance, but thing is people dont want to lose to some bots, they want to lose to some humans. SO everytime you get games like this with 2-4 humans and you lose even if you outscore them ( your case is not that bad, there are plenty screenshots on forum when they were even afk and won) , you get nothing but frustration ( there is nothing more frustrating than beating a guy at something , but seeing defeat ). We all feel the same, but it seems there is nothing we can do but to accept this garbage or stop playing. I for one will never invest a dime in this game for as long as the bots exist.

[zeitza]

It's funny how even new people at WG get instantly brainwashed and learn how to trivialise things with russian arrogance. I mean are you serious right now?

You ask for a replay from somebody that has 3392 played battles. 

You don't feel a bit ashamed that you want to try to to explain such an experienced player the game?  

 

Sure, a big portion of the player base is just too bad to understand the game that's the biggest problem here. Not the unbalance which is basically the main part of WG's track record in any game.

 

Edited by zeitza, 11 July 2018 - 05:06 PM.

[BiBaBummsebiene]

Ok let's sum this up and take some conclusions on this, as this is one important topic in my eyes!

Before I start: everyone will have his own vision of things on this, but I try to refer to all of them. Additionally I am no native speaker so if you think one point is making no sense pls just ask me first, don't just kick in and try to blame me. In this list I don't refer to bugs etc. it's just "if everything would run perfect".

 

1.) In the current game mode (conquest) you have a variety of tactics to win the game. The most efficient one is to take important bases (military, command, plant,...) and let them do the work (offensive: mb, cc) and defensive (high scoring: plant). This way you don't have to score high to win --> scoring your points in the "right place" is more important than simply shredding everything and get many points. The very team-addicted playstyle was an aim of WG, so as less impact one player has the better; favoring the "class-type" playstyle.

2.) as Horcan said: bots are a real issue in conquest as "others" than the players interfere in the conquering of a base. BUT in my eyes even with humans you have this problem.

3.) As a conclusion of 1.) and 2.) conquest is the team-mode with the tactical-waft

4.) Ok what's with all the "how can this and this result be possible"-comments. Well as still there are many players of 0.X and 1.X the educated thinking is: the more I do (kill) the more impact I have and the more I should get (better results). Still there is a bit of a point in that, but the simple "there more I kill the more I win" isn't present anymore.

5.) As you can never depict all opinions simple one game-mode won't make everyone happy (and that isn't even possible with 100 modes). Still there is a great amount of people who aren't very happy with the "new" game mode or others that have been tested. Still the gamemode is one of the most important things. It's the reason gamers come here. Just take a look at PUBG: not anything new but addictive game mode. Fortnite has nothing real incredibly new (yes building but that was possible in other games before too).

6.) Ok WGs point of view: if I make a new mode and give it to the players next to conquest I split the community. Correct if you are just counting with ppl that are already playing the game. -> more players -> more money-spender

7.) so how to get more players: real difficult issue as WG doesn't provide us with hard facts like daily/weekly/monthly player-numbers... (yes following is a bit speculative) So just pretend with 2.0 (as a risky step) there were some new players and some old left. For the sake of justice let's say the player numbers are the same (at least here in Europe). Still, there was a reason the game changed (not enough income). So with new players the income went up (new players invest new money; old players already bought everything). Fine for WG but obviously not enough. So we are still here: what to do? Well the engine changed from 1.x to 2.x. the mode changed. Still not a real step forwards. So the next step was: make it more complicated (new equip etc.). Nice for long time players, not very friendly for new players. Now to get the best way to get the best out of your plane is a long grind or big money. Eekee is working on explanations how the best way to get all out of the new system works. All this a new player has to go through.

-> conclude: many things that have been worked on but not a real effort in the sense of player-number-explosion

8.) Who is playing this game: I haven't seen many young players. Let's say the average (without knowing you all) is probably around 30-35. Why am I telling you this? Well, this generation isn't the "hype let's play this" generation. So the target-group is pretty limited.

 

--> if we now take a look at all points: we have a community that is split: some love conquest, some aren't very happy with it. We tried some new modes. Still not a 100% love. Old players wait for TDM (team death match) of 0.X and 1.X. We need/want new/more players. Easiest way: WG has lots of experience with TDM. Create this "old" game mode again next to conquest. It's not as a big risk as keeping it the way it currently is. If it fails you can say: at least we tried and reduce it back to conquest only. If the player numbers increase: well done!

WG, you risked it to go for 2.0 against much resistance, now risk it once more for the resistance ... and for hopefully many new players.

A game with a solid playerbase (even if it doesn't pay that much) is much more attractive then a game with a small playerbase.

 

greetings,

BiBa

Edited by BiBaBummsebiene, 11 July 2018 - 05:25 PM.

[CheefCoach]

zeitza, on 11 July 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

It's funny how even new people at WG get instantly brainwashed and learn how to trivialise things with russian arrogance. I mean are you serious right now?

You ask for a replay from somebody that has 3392 played battles. 

You don't feel a bit ashamed that you want to try to to explain such an experienced player the game?  

 

Sure, a big portion of the player base is just too bad to understand the game that's the biggest problem here. Not the unbalance which is basically the main part of WG's track record in any game.

 

 

eekeeboo have 3615 battles and if that isn't enough he can have mine one thousand and some battles. I completely agree with him, battle replay can give much more information than few screen shots and complaining. We can analyze battle replay together and figure it out what happened. Also somebody can actually learn something from it. 

 

It is hard for some player to understand the game is because Persha didn't bother to provide any tutorial to the game in 2.0. There was one before 2.0. 

[zeitza]

Oh yeah ..he has more battles ..he must be the ultimate master.  Anybody else must be wrong..Omg fanboys these days...Get a grip..a blind could tell you that this game is fundamentally broken. You can go for captures 24/7 (ignore every unnecessary frag) and you still lose to random bullshit. If you don't see that there is no help for you.

 

PS: I wont go further here..it will lead to the same results like in any other thread...but remember the player count you "wise guys" ..lmao

Edited by zeitza, 11 July 2018 - 05:42 PM.

[CheefCoach]

Horcan, on 11 July 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

For as long as this game has bots, all games can be considered rigged, since some algorithm in there decide what level of bots each team have, you may fight vs a bot that pursue you relentless and shoot at you with insane accuracy ( even overall in the game he does crap, like 2k points ) while you may see in your team after you die for good bots that cant hit crapwhile firing at a stright line target. They probably made the bots like this to have some balance, but thing is people dont want to lose to some bots, they want to lose to some humans. SO everytime you get games like this with 2-4 humans and you lose even if you outscore them ( your case is not that bad, there are plenty screenshots on forum when they were even afk and won) , you get nothing but frustration ( there is nothing more frustrating than beating a guy at something , but seeing defeat ). We all feel the same, but it seems there is nothing we can do but to accept this garbage or stop playing. I for one will never invest a dime in this game for as long as the bots exist.

 

I don't want to lose, period. Bots or humans. Bots are as equal to both teams as they can be. If you have two players with let say fighters of equal tier (one in each team) both teams should have identical bots. What type of bots is determined by number of humans and tier of the battle. Before 2.0 when we had mode that we could actually see what type of bots are in the game, in 1 vs 1 fight distribution of bots were (out of memory):

 

tier 1: 9 newbie bots

tier 2: 9 newbie bots

tier 3: 5 newbie bots and 4 soldier bots (or 4/5)

tier 4: 1 newbie bot (in ground attack plane) and 8 solider bots

tier 5: 1 newbie bot (in ground attack plane), 7 solider bots and 1 veteran bot (usually in Heavy fighter)

tier 6: 1 newbie bot (in ground attack plane), 6 solider bots and 2 veteran bots (usually in Heavy fighters)

tier 7: 1 newbie bot (in ground attack plane), 5 solider bots and 3 veteran bots (Heavy fighter are first to take veteran pilots)

tier 8: 1 newbie bot (in ground attack plane), 4 solider bots and 4 veteran bots (Heavy fighter are first to take veteran pilots)

tier 9: 4 solider bots and 5 veteran bots (Heavy fighter are first to take veteran pilots)

tier 10: 3 solider bots and 6 veteran bots (Heavy fighter are first to take veteran pilots)

 

Veterans are much more accurate than soldiers, and soldiers are much, much, much more accurate than newbies. Newbies have stock planes as well. When there is more human player, system removes newbie bot and some veterans. So tier 5 with 3 players would have only soldier bots. 

 

In 2.0 bots of certain class tend to priorities certain sectors. So ground attacker tend to go after mining plants, and fighters tend to go after airports (and after middle sectors). 

 

And with all added, taking sectors in specific order is important. Command centers attack sector by order of which enemy have taken them. So if there are 2 of command centers on the map, and enemy takes command center first, you want to your team take some unimportant sector before command one. 

[zen_monk_]

CheefCoach, on 11 July 2018 - 05:42 PM, said:

Before 2.0 when we had mode that we could actually see what type of bots are in the game, in 1 vs 1 fight distribution of bots were (out of memory):

 

Didn't know this. I would like it very much again.

[CheefCoach]

zeitza, on 11 July 2018 - 06:39 PM, said:

Oh yeah ..he has more battles ..he must be the ultimate master.  Anybody else must be wrong..Omg fanboys these days...Get a grip..a blind could tell you that this game is fundamentally broken. You can go for captures 24/7 (ignore every unnecessary frag) and you still lose to random bullshit. If you don't see that there is no help for you.

 

PS: I wont go further here..it will lead to the same results like in any other thread...but remember the player count you "wise guys" ..lmao

 

You associated number of battles with experience, and the experience with the knowledge. And yeah you can lose even if you did everything right, because this is team battle. 

But there is a reason why eekeeboo have around 71 % of win rate, why I have around 66 %, you have 63 %, Jonagus have 58 %; and there is people with more than 80 % and there are people with less than 40 % of win rate. 

 

 

zen_monk_, on 11 July 2018 - 06:46 PM, said:

 

Didn't know this. I would like it very much again.

 

And this is how it looked like:

 

 

You can see that there are 4 bots marked with V as veterans (lower tier is tier 8 and bots are linked to that), 4 as S for soldier and 1 GA is N as Newbie (or Novice). Also you can see how good were human players. Also this cheating mod was giving you relative altitude to marked target and in some version speed of target. But you can see that both team got same bots. 

 

[zen_monk_]

Thank you very much.

 

And oh how I miss the old (old as in 1.0-1.5) ground targets. Spread all over the enemy territory and with a single objective - AA emplacement? That's one gun. And I hated the tank formations, wasted bombs on them otherwise needed for a HQ.

[eekeeboo]

zeitza, on 11 July 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

 

 

New people at WG? Or the best way to explain and analyse a game is with a replay? I'm sure you know this, anyone who has ever worked at improving themselves in a game does this. More so if you've played it competitively. 

 

I'm not saying this applies to the OP, but just because a person has a million games, doesn't mean they were doing the right thing in those million games. 

 

Further to your second answer, I am assuming you've never met me in-game or played with me? 

 

Horcan, on 11 July 2018 - 03:56 PM, said:

 

 

The MM doesn't "rig" games. The MM isn't sentient, it doesn't have an agenda or desire, nor is there an algorithm to "rig" a game. It balances them out within set parameters to have the same level of bots on each side. That's it. The Definition of rigging: the dishonest or illegal activity of influencing or changing something in order to get the result that you want. 

 

The MM doesn't "rig" games. 

BiBaBummsebiene, on 11 July 2018 - 05:13 PM, said:

 

 

More players doesn't always equal more spending. But server numbers will not change the way people play conquest and it's meta, only number of players actually playing will change that or a shift in game balancing. I would like the server numbers myself because, it would prevent some of the arbitrary statements. But.... it's not my choice, but here's hoping! 

 

zen_monk_, on 11 July 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

 

 

This was the mod I referred to previously. It was helpful for the things you mentioned, but it also meant there would be people focusing top bots first and thus having an unfair advantage on those that didn't because they would know how the bot would behave. As well as all the other naughty and extra information they would get. If you want to see what I mean, if you google, hyrunomod you should get some screenshots of it. It's how many people found out about balanced bot level numbers in teams etc. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dreambill]

These results only proves constantly that current mode has nothing to do with a flight game. The needs to win concentrate on fast valuable sector capture witch together with respawns

force everyone to travel around maps to specific points ignoring opposition presence (and being killed) for just shoot specific "targets" to achieve sector capture.

You can replace planes with whatever (soldiers-tanks-spaceships-dragons-rubber ducks) and have a game with a concept like this.

But it is not a game about flying planes and fighting with them, as it supposed, and used to be.

[Horcan]

I didnt said MM rig games, i said behaviour of bots mean rigged games. If its a 1v1, me scoring 20k + points and the other guy is afk, but i still lose, it means their bots did what is supposed to do, while mine were disabled circling some no sector area. And that for me it means rigging, no matter what contract force you to claim otherwise in here.

[zen_monk_]

Horcan, on 11 July 2018 - 08:19 PM, said:

I didnt said MM rig games, i said behaviour of bots mean rigged games. If its a 1v1, me scoring 20k + points and the other guy is afk, but i still lose, it means their bots did what is supposed to do, while mine were disabled circling some no sector area. And that for me it means rigging, no matter what contract force you to claim otherwise in here.

 

I had many, many games like this. The bottom line is - you simply can not explain it without venturing into that dark area of patent.

[CheefCoach]

There is a battle where I did everything right, got around 9 k of personal points and won. There was no time to get more points. I could have played differently, stayed in middle and buffed personal points and potentially losing the battle. 

 

You can get 20 k of personal points by staying in single sector and killing incoming bots, while enemy getting points from all other sectors. PP only show how much damage have you done, and not how useful you were for your team. 

 

edit: there should be attachment here with battle replay, but for some reason there is bug on forum. Lets fix that firstly!

Edited by CheefCoach, 11 July 2018 - 09:02 PM.

[Horcan]

That is exactly my point. If i stayed in a single sector , raping bots over and over , while the enemy human did absolutely nothing, being afk. Yet, even if i killed 20k worth of point enemy bots, they were more proficient at capturing the other 4 bases than my entire team of bots which were unhindered by a human? And you want me to accept it isnt rigged?

[BiBaBummsebiene]

eekeeboo, on 11 July 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

More players doesn't always equal more spending. But server numbers will not change the way people play conquest and it's meta, only number of players actually playing will change that or a shift in game balancing. I would like the server numbers myself because, it would prevent some of the arbitrary statements. But.... it's not my choice, but here's hoping! 

That‘s exactly what I Said but I think you didn‘t get me.

I dont care about current gamer numbers nor do I want to change any meta.

My point was: to get more ppl you need an attractive playerbase which currently simply is non existing (Or at least only partly). To enhance numbers get a second mode like the „hardcore mode“. This will attract older players to come back -> bigger playerbase (still not more money but the more ppl play the more attractive for new players...). New players probably more money... 

how to get more players? Obviously Not with a single Game mode.

 

To the bot thing: If a player decides to defend a base and scores XXk points that‘s team thinking playstyle for me. If the bots can‘t gain sth out of this situation then they aren‘t team addicted and not good in what they should do. Give players possibility of handling them and this discussion will lift up to a whole new and more constructive way ;) or easier: make a Game mode that suits bot behavior much more... -> TDM (that‘s what they were programmed for :-P

 

Greetings,

BiBa

[Horcan]

I really dont see how making a game mode for hardcore players would bring more people to the game. New players will obviously choose the easier mode, and taking the veterans from the conquest mode will reduce the population rather than increasing it. So instead of a dying game, you will have two dead ones.