Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

eagle7

Growth in this game is going to be pilot related. Advertise there.

Recommended Posts

eagle7

Most of the pilot gaming community does not know about this game. Name another game where pilot kills really matter? and it is not a match. Where the person you bombed may have been driving their tank for 10 minutes to reach the town. Where you shoot down an enemy plane and that is one of the last planes they have in the area giving you total control of the bombers for a while. Where pilot skill is very important compared to many other arcade type games. 

 

If done right there will be as game planes in the air as units on the ground due to the type of players. Just my thoughts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zaltor

You mean like it use to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky

A fully fleshed hi alt strategic air war would be a gold mine 

 

I really wish this was the primary development area 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saffroli
10 hours ago, Silky said:

A fully fleshed hi alt strategic air war would be a gold mine 

 

I really wish this was the primary development area 

Not until a total physics overhaul.

There's two major things that turned people away and keep them away from this game.

No.1 [mostly allied players] is the TZ3 problem
No.2 [Mostly axis players] is the air game physics inconsistencies

As it happens, I think if air numbers were exactly equal to ground troops, the potential for the gameplay to suffer is large.
In an ideal world you'd have AA guns everywhere manned by players and a big portion of the air playerbase would be doing high-alt RDP etc

But the reality of how it will play out is totally different. You'd just have air camps of FBs/ABs and nobody would have any fun.

If it's like today where only a minority percentage of people are in the air generally with the occasional big air battles that are typical to the gameplay [knokke VS vliss kind of stuff] then I dont see a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
11 hours ago, Silky said:

A fully fleshed hi alt strategic air war would be a gold mine 

I really wish this was the primary development area 

Seems to me that development resources primarily go where the revenue is, as opposed to where it's wished to be.

A relatively small minority of revenue comes from air players. Most revenue comes from infantry players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
35 minutes ago, saffroli said:

Not until a total physics overhaul.

There's two major things that turned people away and keep them away from this game.

No.1 [mostly allied players] is the TZ3 problem
No.2 [Mostly axis players] is the air game physics inconsistencies

As it happens, I think if air numbers were exactly equal to ground troops, the potential for the gameplay to suffer is large.
In an ideal world you'd have AA guns everywhere manned by players and a big portion of the air playerbase would be doing high-alt RDP etc

But the reality of how it will play out is totally different. You'd just have air camps of FBs/ABs and nobody would have any fun.

If it's like today where only a minority percentage of people are in the air generally with the occasional big air battles that are typical to the gameplay [knokke VS vliss kind of stuff] then I dont see a problem.

Hence my focus on hi altitude, long distance strategic bombing, not low altitude furballs and it’s more attractive cousin genuine air to ground CAS.
 

The aspiration should be a bombing mission that takes 60 to 90 minutes to RTB, with technical minigames (bomb aiming, navigation, equipment/engineering management, formation flying as well as anti-interceptor gunnery. The counter to this is interception missions and CAP flying, with a reasonably high likelihood of encountering bombers. And then there’s the escorts. 
 

Get that right 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
4 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Seems to me that development resources primarily go where the revenue is, as opposed to where it's wished to be.

A relatively small minority of revenue comes from air players. Most revenue comes from infantry players.

Well, yeah. Revenue, marketing, development. Who’d be a Game Dev 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
6 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Seems to me that development resources primarily go where the revenue is, as opposed to where it's wished to be.

A relatively small minority of revenue comes from air players. Most revenue comes from infantry players.

If this were true we'd have at least equivalent population to the old days no? This game was always a better vehicle sim than infantry. Focusing on infantry hasn't increased population at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
11 minutes ago, Silky said:

Hence my focus on hi altitude, long distance strategic bombing

If you think a time requirement of 2+ hours will be a giant hit among players and a large draw .. well ... good luck with that.

Players just won't spend that much time regularly doing anything. Would it be a cool sometimes feature? maybe. A much deeper localized lower altitude simulator will be a larger draw though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
28 minutes ago, madrebel said:

If you think a time requirement of 2+ hours will be a giant hit among players and a large draw .. well ... good luck with that.

Players just won't spend that much time regularly doing anything. Would it be a cool sometimes feature? maybe. A much deeper localized lower altitude simulator will be a larger draw though.

I’m thinking niche sim as opposed to instant Adrenalin dopamine hit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheCat
10 minutes ago, Silky said:

I’m thinking niche sim as opposed to instant Adrenalin dopamine hit 

well, you can make somthing that niche that it no longer becomes viable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
1 hour ago, Silky said:

I’m thinking niche sim as opposed to instant Adrenalin dopamine hit 

Niche and growth ... not sure I'd go down that path. If you had AI mustering and getting the flights into the air and in position, with spawn in before crossing the front, and again spawn in for gun positions later ... maybe you'd have something more would engage in.

Sitting around for 20 minutes, just to take off and fly another 60+ minutes round trip has never been something people in this game have been able to sustain on anything approaching a large scale. "but if we just had ... people would do it" ... no they wouldn't.

people have X amount of time. if they can't be having some fun within a few minutes they're just not willing to do it. doesn't matter the game. if all you're ever going to do is cater to the niche masochists that love fake realism for the sake of fake realism (much of what is left of the community) then you're going to have population problems.

example - weather. weather as we know it in this game is fake realism. it only impacts one aspect of the game sorta kinda realistically while being a stylistic backdrop for the rest of the game and affording them protection from 'the big bad wolves in the sky'. end result was a massacred pilot population and a ground population still struggling as none of the issues really holding back that aspect of the game were addressed by this non feature.

building out a high alt strategic airwar would be another non feature. on paper, sure sounds great. in practice the issues with the airwar aren't really addressed by adding a feature that few will take part in. many many suggestions have been put forth over the years by many people, me included. hell we can't even get bombable airfields put in which were an extremely high priority target and would give us relatively quick action that would draw planes away from AOs focusing them on other planes.

and you want a high altitude airwar? yeah, good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Silky
3 minutes ago, madrebel said:

Sitting around for 20 minutes, just to take off and fly another 60+ minutes round trip has never been something people in this game have been able to sustain on anything approaching a large scale. "but if we just had ... people would do it" ... no they wouldn't.

I guess the question is how long a mission will a slice of the population commit to?

Let’s say we’re not talking about COD pew pew players, we’re talking the type of player who enjoys a tactical, technical mission, the type who’d flank enemy positions or not engage a target in order to focus on a different target. 30 minutes? 45? 60? The data exists, so it can guide any development. If a typical run exceeds that X minute target, then yes, game mechanics should support the vision of a bomber pilot mission, be it hi alt spawning or autopilot RTB or any other mechanism. 
 

I think there’s sufficient appetite for a developed Air War, augmented by clone/drone aircraft if the bombing mini-game is technical and involved enough to simulate the real deal. People conduct factory RDP bombing already, despite the flaws. Improving it will improve the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
12 minutes ago, Silky said:

I guess the question is how long a mission will a slice of the population commit to?

Depends, are you just sitting in a big target with minimal chance for success and minimal impact for your time? Or are you in a fighter plane roaming the front line hot spots and could over the span of an hour, have multiple engagements?

i've had single 20m long engagements in this game where neither party shot the other down. those were infinitely more fun than any bomber or escort mission i've done and i was part of some of the most epic high altitude engagements in this game. specifically the one time KGBBs flight accidentally ran into the dambusters flight and two large bomber formations + escorts merged.

bomber missions aren't 'fun' so much as they're a chat room with moments of interesting action ... but mostly they're just missions you can drink beer on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kr0nik

madrebel  is right as usual.  WW11OL=ground game they let us fly over,,, old conversation with no satisfaction 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmw
3 hours ago, madrebel said:

If you think a time requirement of 2+ hours will be a giant hit among players and a large draw .. well ... good luck with that.

Players just won't spend that much time regularly doing anything. Would it be a cool sometimes feature? maybe. A much deeper localized lower altitude simulator will be a larger draw though.

I agree........2+ hrs for RDP and nothing to show for it.  Id rather die 20 times doing something more "productive" in 2 hrs than one RDP mission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chry

As a player that came to WWIIOL with my squad from WB, I have a soft spot for the air game, even though I rarely fly anymore

2 issues come to mind:

Purpose - Fighters are there to deny enemy bombers free rein over your territory... Bombing missions are complex and specific operations,

                  not just whipped up on the spur of the moment  Bomber mission structure for air combat has never been correct for WWIIOL

                  There should be a limited number of AI driven bomber missions on each day "cycle"

                  In WWII strat bombing missions were hardly secret... same thing should exist in WWIIOL,

                  every TZ should have one daylight and one night bomb run

Time-        Yes, not everyone will commit 2-3 hours to a mission,  but if the mission STARTS as AI planes, with the option to have players join

                  at any point as pilots, gunners, bomb aimers etc, it WOULD be possible to round up a bunch of players on short notice to join the 

                  mission already in progress

                 and, by compressing the arena VERTICALLY as it is horizontally, it keeps the fight at an altitude where ground based AAA is still a

                 factor

The significance of this idea is that strat bombing again becomes a deliberate and vital part of each side's gameplan, as is the need to stop it

AI run bombers will be mostly ineffective on their own, they will miss targets, fly into AA traps and generally be sitting ducks ... fun targets for

fighter pilots, even rookies.  Put a few experienced players into the lead planes and some human gunners for defense then you've got yourself a war!

 

There is no reason that this approach would be any different with ships, trains and of course parachuting dogs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
39 minutes ago, chry said:

As a player that came to WWIIOL with my squad from WB, I have a soft spot for the air game, even though I rarely fly anymore

2 issues come to mind:

Purpose - Fighters are there to deny enemy bombers free rein over your territory... Bombing missions are complex and specific operations,

                  not just whipped up on the spur of the moment  Bomber mission structure for air combat has never been correct for WWIIOL

                  There should be a limited number of AI driven bomber missions on each day "cycle"

                  In WWII strat bombing missions were hardly secret... same thing should exist in WWIIOL,

                  every TZ should have one daylight and one night bomb run

Time-        Yes, not everyone will commit 2-3 hours to a mission,  but if the mission STARTS as AI planes, with the option to have players join

                  at any point as pilots, gunners, bomb aimers etc, it WOULD be possible to round up a bunch of players on short notice to join the 

                  mission already in progress

                 and, by compressing the arena VERTICALLY as it is horizontally, it keeps the fight at an altitude where ground based AAA is still a

                 factor

The significance of this idea is that strat bombing again becomes a deliberate and vital part of each side's gameplan, as is the need to stop it

AI run bombers will be mostly ineffective on their own, they will miss targets, fly into AA traps and generally be sitting ducks ... fun targets for

fighter pilots, even rookies.  Put a few experienced players into the lead planes and some human gunners for defense then you've got yourself a war!

 

There is no reason that this approach would be any different with ships, trains and of course parachuting dogs...

Been saying similar for years. usually met with "AI KICKED MY DOG ONCE SO NO" or other mouth breathing type responses. 100% agree though and i'll add AI escorts ... that you spawn into thus become PC instead of AIC units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moetow
7 hours ago, madrebel said:

Niche and growth ... not sure I'd go down that path. If you had AI mustering and getting the flights into the air and in position, with spawn in before crossing the front, and again spawn in for gun positions later ... maybe you'd have something more would engage in.

Sitting around for 20 minutes, just to take off and fly another 60+ minutes round trip has never been something people in this game have been able to sustain on anything approaching a large scale. "but if we just had ... people would do it" ... no they wouldn't.

people have X amount of time. if they can't be having some fun within a few minutes they're just not willing to do it. doesn't matter the game. if all you're ever going to do is cater to the niche masochists that love fake realism for the sake of fake realism (much of what is left of the community) then you're going to have population problems.

example - weather. weather as we know it in this game is fake realism. it only impacts one aspect of the game sorta kinda realistically while being a stylistic backdrop for the rest of the game and affording them protection from 'the big bad wolves in the sky'. end result was a massacred pilot population and a ground population still struggling as none of the issues really holding back that aspect of the game were addressed by this non feature.

building out a high alt strategic airwar would be another non feature. on paper, sure sounds great. in practice the issues with the airwar aren't really addressed by adding a feature that few will take part in. many many suggestions have been put forth over the years by many people, me included. hell we can't even get bombable airfields put in which were an extremely high priority target and would give us relatively quick action that would draw planes away from AOs focusing them on other planes.

and you want a high altitude airwar? yeah, good luck with that.

Always asked this question: How many players did we lose because of the weather? How many did we lose because it was sunny all the time? 

People say "but I like the weather", yeah, and that's great, but would you have unsubbed because it was sunny all the time? It would have never crossed your minds. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Trouble is, a majority of customers play ground...and they don't want the weather beautiful all the time for ground attack and strat bombing.

Solution: finally figure out zoned weather. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blggles

One of the best ideas ever for this game, imho, is the ability to spawn multiple units. Leave units in the field that one may reenter, for a ready, instead of reactive, defense, that sort of thing. Well bombing, and naval operations for that matter, would also greatly benefit from the ability. Lift from blighty in your B17, put her on autopilot, come back in half an hour when she enters indian country, get through the tough part, put her on auto again, then land her on return. To which 'join in flight' to man the gunners would be an excellent compliment.

Edited by blggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
madrebel
18 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Trouble is, a majority of customers play ground...and they don't want the weather beautiful all the time for ground attack and strat bombing.

Solution: finally figure out zoned weather. 

this is total BS. ground players want weather, as long as it doesn't prevent them from playing. they want stylized settings. would they like their gameplay ground to a complete halt because of mud for an entire day or two? so cold the rifle bolt freeze up, can't aim cause your hands are frozen cold ...

nobody wants weather, they want it to look like there is weather. seriously anyone that purposely designs something that prevents players from playing ... the idiocy of that decision ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly

Think before engaging keyboard.

Quote

ground players want weather, as long as it doesn't prevent them from playing. 

Ummmm...yes, good analysis. They want what they want, i.e. weather that benefits them.

Quote

nobody wants weather, they want it to look like there is weather. 

Yes. Ground players want weather that allows them to have their infantry fights and tank duels, without being subject to air attack.

Quote

seriously anyone that purposely designs something that prevents players from playing ... the idiocy of that decision ...

Heh. Oh, yeah, the idiocy of a design decision that pleases a majority of customers...so dumb.  8^)

But zoned weather, in which players could go on the map wherever their needs are met...now there's a radical idea.  8^) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moetow
1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Think before engaging keyboard.

Ummmm...yes, good analysis. They want what they want, i.e. weather that benefits them.

Yes. Ground players want weather that allows them to have their infantry fights and tank duels, without being subject to air attack.

Heh. Oh, yeah, the idiocy of a design decision that pleases a majority of customers...so dumb.  8^)

But zoned weather, in which players could go on the map wherever their needs are met...now there's a radical idea.  8^) 

So gut the air game so some other people can be happy. 

You're a marketing genius. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jwilly
34 minutes ago, moetow said:

So gut the air game so some other people can be happy. 

You're a marketing genius. 

We'd all love to have every customer happy. 

That was the point of the "zoned weather" suggestion....hardly an original one, it's been out there since maybe Week Three.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...