圖檔[] []

檔名:1425225555543.jpg-(707 KB) 預覽
707 KBWG內部會議關於WoWP部分 名稱: 無名 [15/03/01(日)23:59 ID:0Ni.YqFU (Host: 59-126-*.hinet-ip.hinet.net)] No.208 7推 

There was apparently a long discussion about why World of Warplanes failed (yes, it is considered a failure). The points that were mentioned and on which the developers generally agreed:

- Bigworld engine physics are correct for the game – however, the execution of the project was bad, very bad, because “it's not as appealing or fun”

- lack of proper tech trees, planes varieties, problems with joystick support, driving planes on keyboard isn't that great, and sluggish battle mechanics are considered the culprit of WoWp's failure against Warthunder dynamic gameplay, but that's ONLY concerning aerial warfare

- the main problem they mentioned was: “In WoT gameplay, you can pretty much go and at least deal some damage, make yourself be known, fight and earn your kills and skills. In WoWp, its all RNG, your ping dictates if a shower of bullets hits or not. Your plane, you aren't really feeling the controls. One feature we wanted was a complete cockpit view, never happened properly, you can spend dozens of battles without scoring a single kill despite actually doing your best to try, the sense of individuality is lost and the name just becomes “one more” of the crowd”

- the companion AI autoaim is a mess, 80% of the time you are on a bomber, you'll miss the target

- objectives were not proper or clear enough, with so much data filling the minimap, some players found themselves alienated and only spent time hitting boats or bases and not doing aerial combat

- graphical problems and pixelated areas despite good graphic cards didn't help either

- “The fact that WT uses the client to perform some of the calculations while WOWp is all server based is a bit influential as well, however – it's impossible for WoWp to ever use that system, as it's quite easy to make cheats for it”

- increasing the amount of data transferred would only clog servers and cause lag, disappearing planes are not fun

- consumables are considered okay, P2W factor was not of concern and it's considered balanced
無名: 請問WG,WT的外掛到底在哪?別跟我說Aimbot或AimJunkies那種騙錢貨 (EowPmL6Y 15/03/11 23:35)
可憐的軍武板: 果然不意外啊...........戰場設定問題現在才注意到嗎....... (JlGB12tQ 15/03/22 09:13)
可憐的軍武板: 飛機的部分則是在於戰鬥機的靈活度以及速度性都被壓下來...... (JlGB12tQ 15/03/22 09:14)
可憐的軍武板: 其實遊戲當初設定上真要回歸史實的話飛機的速度+航程其實要算才對 (JlGB12tQ 15/03/22 09:17)
可憐的軍武板: 你戰場比例縮小就會出現飛機的速度+視野縮小+航程就不明顯........ (JlGB12tQ 15/03/22 09:17)
可憐的軍武板: 而後面真要融入天候的時候飛機視野問題會更明顯............ (JlGB12tQ 15/03/22 09:18)
無名: 耖你媽祖國立場的圖紙飛機才是重點吧,腦袋裝屎的團隊. (IVbQpkQc 15/07/14 16:04)
無標 名稱: 無名 [15/03/02(一)00:22 ID:85gkjLKc (Host: 59-126-*.hinet-ip.hinet.net)] No.209 12推  
- the staff believes that the main success of WT aerial warfare is because you not only fight against planes, but against player controlled AA tank guns and other tanks down below: “you can take your ire against an unsuspecting player on the ground and blow him to smithereens – and likewise, be pounded from AA player guns and blow up, and that is fun”. However, tank warfare is definitely worse than WoT and the P2W element is strongest there.

About the future of WoWp development with following features considered/approved:

- the game will still go on, however it will be completely salvaged and reworked

- proper 3D cockpits will be introduced

- maps might become a bit smaller and with fewer objectives (WoWs style)

- bomber overhaul and the introduction of more planes (an idea surged here from allowing a platoon of players to fly a bomber on different positions, for example one guy is the pilot, the other a bomber and the third a gunner)

- more control of your plane (ability to turn off multiple engines on/off or using your airspeed to extinguish fires (engine on fire, no extinguisher, take a dive and turn off the engine, pray for success)

- graphics correction, no more “cloud plasters” and “blue trees”

- climbing altitude no longer a “damnable task”

- more turbine-based planes in all the branching trees or move them a tier or so

- rockets, because “rockets”

- take off from a carrier as the battle starts (interesting eye candy)

- better plane handling

- at one point, the developers even discussed merging WoWp with WoWs – not wot because of the maps mechanics and stuff, but WoWs can actually pull it off (unlike WoT). It would be a huuuuuuge undertaking, so it's just an idea.

- WG requires player feedback on how to improve WoWp as well, polls will come out, so if players start filling the suggestion box, especially on the NA/EU cluster that plays, WG will listen
無名: 聽起來是有在反省.... 每個人偏好不同,至少3D座艙視角和搖桿對我很重要,所以我先去玩WT了 XD (2Pd8HAUM 15/03/02 21:11)
無名: 說真的,戰機世界遊戲是不差,但是PING的好壞對於遊戲性的影響是很深遠的... (.tsvapMg 15/03/05 17:06)
無名: 相較之下wt就算ping很高感覺還是很流暢? 不過太高的話還是會出現敵人瞬移的情況 (Y0GBGV3o 15/03/10 13:59)
無名: wt比較順是因為wt運算在客戶端的關係吧 (8Jzl/NE2 15/03/16 15:43)
無名: 拿金幣時有玩過毛子的攻擊機, 如果有些會影響勝負的地面目標(會在地圖重生)可能會好點 (ngMqpW8o 15/03/28 07:35)
無名: 一開始的目標炸光後都要跑去和人狗(撞)真的有點悶... (ngMqpW8o 15/03/28 07:36)
無名氏: 我有點好奇WT的外掛有比WOT多嗎? (mbVRqjZA 15/10/11 04:39)
無名氏: 會久玩wt的大多都求真實模擬的玩家,遊戲地目的比較偏操作享受 wowp走的是電競簡易大眾 (fLFpati. 16/04/15 01:02)
無名氏: 只能說招的玩家類型不同。所以蝸牛肯把運行資料部分放客戶端,伺服器壓力小,遊戲物理運算相對能更複雜 (fLFpati. 16/04/15 01:05)
無名氏: wowp走的是電競大眾化,大多運算就得放伺服器防易破解,緊湊的搶勝模式歪瓜就有理由了 (fLFpati. 16/04/15 01:10)
無名氏: WOT才是P2W元素最嚴重的吧!WT高穿深砲彈根本不須花金鷹,比金幣車也是WOT數量最多 (Fu/7//os 17/05/27 12:10)
無名氏: WG說人家P2W之前怎麼不先看看自己什麼鳥樣? (Fu/7//os 17/05/27 12:12)
無標 名稱: 無名 [15/03/02(一)00:26 ID:85gkjLKc (Host: 59-126-*.hinet-ip.hinet.net)] No.210 2推  

我對這個比較有興趣,不過這模式要怎麼滅火?像德軍總部:新秩序 開頭那樣嗎?
無名: 通訊兵是幹嘛吃的 平常沒用的人這時候就用到啦 (PpDNt7JY 15/03/06 13:48)
無名: 貼近水面,用武器建起水花? (GHMebNU. 15/03/20 09:29)
無標 名稱: 無名 [15/03/25(三)00:01 ID:ypVAwd0Q (Host: 58.153.*.netvigator.com)] No.211   

無標 名稱: 無名 [15/03/27(五)11:57 ID:BGO2n3Bc (Host: 108-254-*.sbcglobal.net)] No.212 7推  
不好意思新手問一下, (沒玩過其他戰機遊戲), 面對這種狀況各位該如何應對?

你的對手沒事就飛到非常高的位置, 接下來就往下俯衝射你, 然後又繼續飛到很高的地方, 這樣子無限LOOP直到你的飛機爆炸為止,
而你的飛機只要一往上飛就會失控, 你加速直飛也無法離開他的射程範圍, 你只有在他俯衝完之後的那一小段時間有機會射到他, 基本上完全不划算這樣0_0
無名: 你也可以一開局就往上爬 (N5jOvRQs 15/03/28 16:54)
無名: 爬到跟對手同高度的時候 就拚技術了 (因為防止這種戰法的只有別讓牠飛得比你高 (N5jOvRQs 15/03/28 16:58)
無名: 用WG的視野機制玩BZ超痛苦的 大家都超近才點亮根本逼大家狗鬥 (AlwZcYyM 15/03/30 01:35)
無名: 現實世界這叫BnZ 美軍用這戰術專門對付零戰這類纏鬥機 (XnS6ij8E 15/03/30 15:07)
無名: 找飛得比他高的隊友來 (YW9s/fHg 15/04/01 12:38)
無名: 這就是現實中真正的戰機戰鬥方式,你高?老子比你更高! (txhKHgk2 15/04/11 16:00)
無名氏: 所以現實增壓器技術給力的國家會被視為真正的航空強國啊 (Nu9.Y5mA 15/10/11 04:41)
無標 名稱: 無名 [15/04/22(三)02:18 ID:RkhOypQo (Host: *.larcmacau.com)] No.213 7推  
無名: 好問題!首先火箭技術在那些年代並不成熟,其次當年的飛機設計沒有電腦補助風洞測試等等東西來幫忙研發 (yu/TDhCs 15/04/22 20:10)
無名: 而當時噴射動力也不足一直到二戰末期那些噴射機也只能少量出現在戰場上 (yu/TDhCs 15/04/22 20:11)
無名: 雙手劍的話....都有槍了幹嘛還用雙手劍 (yu/TDhCs 15/04/22 20:11)
無名: 未來就是這樣打的阿,你看star war... (ZyIDscEs 15/04/23 18:05)
無名: 幹 我笑了wwww (9iiNBADE 15/07/02 14:55)
無名: Star Wars....你贏了wwww (ZB5BofVw 15/07/04 17:52)
無名氏: 雙手劍廚是邪道 我大雙持光劍才是未來趨勢 (XHCUD/2. 15/09/22 17:37)