Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 7 votes

D.Va stats... anyone else see a problem


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
534 replies to this topic

#481 JG1_Butzzell

JG1_Butzzell
  • Posts: 1380

Posted 31 March 2015 - 15:29


Pending another FM review, we are stuck with what we have. But the new FMs are much better than pre-patch in representing the actual historical aircraft relative performance. What game balance needs is a free-to-play early Central scout to match up with the now free N17.

 

 

 

S!

 

I agree that the present FM is MUCH better than the original and MUCH closer to historical performance but why do we need  a free plane to match the N-17? The free planes are offered to get people interested and see the beauty of the sim without making an investment.  There is a lot to do in single player to wet peoples apatite for more. On line, there are several beginner servers. The planes are not that expensive and there are plenty of sales. People can easily buy a couple of extra planes for less than the price of a ticket to a movie.

 

jmho


  • 0

sig9.png


#482 A.Challenge

A.Challenge
  • Posts: 996
  • LocationAustin, Tx

Posted 31 March 2015 - 18:13

The SPAD 13 and DVa were the FTF planes before the N 17 was added after the first of the year. They were contemporaries, but with its old flight model the DVa was pretty worthless against contemporaries. It rolled okay, but was way slow and turned for crap. Putting it onto servers with early 1917 planes wasn't a big deal because it could at least hold its own -- even though the DIII was actually the better choice. I even prefered the DII Lt to the DVa. Many Entente pilots didn't seem concerned about this when they were flying Camels, Spad 13s -- or even the SPAD 7 180 HP, saying the Central pilots just needed better tactics.

 

Mind you, a large number of people flying both sides were vocal about this and so the change came to pass. (Thank, guys.) Now, the DVa crushes early '17 plane sets when flown well. While many of the FM researchers in the community are still debating its accuracy, the concensus seems to be that it is closer to the historical matchup with planes it should normally fight. It just isn't a sitting duck anymore and Entente pilots have to work harder to shoot it down now. (Still a sitting duck when I'm in one, but that's just me.)

 

I think leeG may have a point. If the FTF planes included an early 1917 Central scout (the DII Lt and DIII are the only choices presently) that could be put on the MP servers and people may feel the sides are more Ballenced. But, honestly, either of those plane cost ~ $6 US -- most of us spend more than that on the beverages and snacks for a night of flying.


  • 0

campribV.png


#483 Kongo_Otto

Kongo_Otto
  • Posts: 382

Posted 04 April 2015 - 00:10

Ah, another thing about this new forum we all have to adapt to, finding out how to block posts from the utterly offensive pack...

 

 

Hint: it uses the same engine as BoS forum. If there is such an option, users of that forum must have fond it long ago. 

 

 

Klick on your name in the upper right corner of the forum page --->Your Profile--->Manage Ignore Prefs--->Add a new user to my list--->done.

 

:icon_e_salute:

 
  • 0

#484 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 06 April 2015 - 03:33

The DVa can keep up with the SE5a... it accellerates to fast it also simply floats through turns and does not bleed energy as a heavy fighter should.

 

I'd be happy if the DVa simply dissappeared from many of the maps.  The free planes should be the N17 (in French, not Russian livery.. but they sold out) and the DII.  Why they thought they should give away mid/late war fighters is beyond me.  A DVa and N17... what a matchup.

 

Make the SE5a and DVa free... that way people have equal performance free planes.  If they can't/won't spend $3 (on sale) for a new plane then they are not going to like the RoF system of pay to win.

 

I have yet (and it has been asked) to see any period material (sources and cited) that claims the DVa was much of an improvement over the DIII.. and that it had great success against the front line RAF/French scouts of the time.

 

I guess it really doens't matter... spring is here and online player numbers will plunge.


  • 0

#485 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 06 April 2015 - 11:34

The more I fly the DVa and the more I fly against it I think balance wise we're pretty much ok now.

 

Yes, it has a highly questionable energy retention in maneuvers - quite glaring when fighting a S.VII.

 

However, it's all fine as long as mission designers don't make N17-s and Pups fight against it. I really don't like the argument "ok, but it's free" - yes. So what? Then run 1918 missions if you want to include free planes, or just let them spend 3 dollars.. But don't ruin the game for everyone for the sake of those who don't want to spend 3 bucks.


  • 5

#486 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1773

Posted 07 April 2015 - 00:55

I've remained out of this thread so far, largely because I don't think FM discussions (arguments?) are particularly useful, and while I have my own personal opinion(s) on the FM's, in the end, we're basically stuck flying what they give us - warts and all...

 

We've seen some numbers presented in this thread that, while interesting, aren't very compelling or revealing.  I think the numbers I'm looking at tell a very different tale, and in fact are the direct reason we're in the process of changing our maps on New Wings - Wargrounds.

 

For me, it's not about which plane is killing which plane, it's about overall game balance - with that in mind, here's what I'm seeing (I apologize in advance for the length of this post).

 

Let's not look at Albie vs Camel kills or even kill ratios -- let's take a peek at Flight Time and Sorties.

 

Here are the top 5 planes being flown in Feb & Mar from a year ago (as compiled from Wargrounds stats)...

               February 2014                               March  2014
Type            HHH:MM     Sorties            Type              HHH:MM       Sorties
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sopwith Camel   407:07       2137             Sopwith Camel     386:12        2083
Fokker Dr.I     393:16       1660             Fokker Dr.I       366:20        1513
Pfalz D.IIIa    331:50       1471             S.E.5a            335:33        1719
S.E.5a          307:56       1483             Pfalz D.IIIa      300:54        1400
Albatros D.Va   280:23       1327             DFW C.V           266:29        1119
                                              ( Alb DVa is #6 )

What I like about these numbers is that each of the top a/c are (relatively) even in terms of flight time.In fact, FT between 1st and 2nd only differs by about 3.5%-5.5% over the two months, with a relatively gradual dropoff going down the list.

 

Let's look at the same time period for this year.

               February 2015                               March  2015
Type            HHH:MM     Sorties            Type              HHH:MM       Sorties
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albatros D.Va   764:21     3314              Albatros D.Va      677:33       3310
Sopwith Camel   342:30     2000              Sopwith Camel      408:08       2183
SPAD 13.C1      328:40     1705              S.E.5a             393:13       1990
Fokker Dr.I     294:39     1375              SPAD 13.C1         313:00       1605
S.E.5a          255:26     1280              Fokker Dr.I        315:38       1471
 
( Pfalz D.IIIa doesn't crack the top 10 in either month )

Look at number one for the past two months - not only is the Albatros DVa being chosen over everything else, it's overwhelmingly doing so by a whopping 66% - 123% over the next most popular choice and it's more than doubled over the same time period last year.

 

Additionally, we can see that numbers for the 2nd to 5th planes don't differ all that much from the 2nd to 5th place planes a year ago (although the Pfalz is gone, and the Dr.1 has dropped noticeably).

 

Still not convinced there's a clear-cut trend that is impacting game balance yet?

 

It would be nice if the boost in DVa flight time was due to new pilots joining us -- alas, not so much.

 

Let's look at a couple active pilots - this isn't to call these guys out by any means, and in fact, I'll refer to them as Pilot A and Pilot B, but they've been flying for years, and they always figure prominently in the leader boards. 

 

The question: Have their flying habits changed since the FM patch?

PILOT: A
               February 2014                                 March  2014
Type             HH:MM   Sorties   FT%        Type             HH:MM   Sorties  FT%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker Dr.I      13:28    45      49.8        Fokker Dr.I      24:30    75     53.9
Albatros D.III    4:45    18      17.6        SPAD 13.C1        8:28    28     18.6
Fokker D.VII      3:53    13      14.4        Albatros D.III    6:42    23     14.7
SPAD 13.C1        2:31     9       9.3        SPAD 7.C1 180hp   3:50    13      8.4                
Fokker D.VIIF     2:24     8       8.9        Fokker D.VII      1:56     7      4.4              
                  -----------                                 ------------
                 27:01    93                                   45:26   146







Looks like this guy likes the Dr. 1 (flying about 1/2 the time) along with a mix of a few other scouts.  How much flight time did this pilot register on the DVa last Feb & March? 

 

Not a single minute. Bupkiss, nada, zilch.

 

How about this year?

PILOT: A
               February 2015                                 March  2015
Type             HH:MM   Sorties   FT%        Type             HH:MM   Sorties  FT%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fokker Dr.I     12:22    39       30.4        Fokker Dr.I      17:44   64      34.1
Albatros D.Va    9:27    31       23.2        Albatros D.Va    12:45   36      24.5
SPAD 13.C1       8:59    32       22.1        SPAD 13.C1       10:39   47      20.5
Fokker D.VIIF    5:38    13       13.8        Albatros D.III    5:44   18      11.0
Albatros D.III   4:16    13       10.5        Fokker D.VIIF     5:09   17       9.9
                -----------                                   ------------ 
                40:42   128                                    52:01  182



Hmmmm... From Zero this time last year to his second most flown plane this year. At least he hasn't abandoned the others entirely, and his overall flight time increased from last year, which is nice.

 

How about our other pilot - What's his picture look like?

PILOT: B
               February 2014                                 March  2014
Type             HH:MM   Sorties   FT%        Type             HH:MM   Sorties  FT%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfalz D.IIIa     22:50    91      60.7        Pfalz D.IIIa     37:33    177    74.9
Gotha G.V         6:43    26      17.9        Fokker Dr.I       3:27     14     6.9
DFW C.V           3:06     8       8.2        Albatros D.III    3:27     17     6.9
Fokker Dr.I       2:42    11       7.2        Gotha G.V         3:14     13     6.4
Albatros D.III    2:16    12       6.0        DFW C.V           2:29      6     4.9
               ---------------                                -------------
                 37:37   148                                   50:10    227

This pilot clearly has a favorite plane which he flies the bulk of the time. How much time did he spend flying the Albatros DVa last Feb & Mar?  Same as Pilot A - Zero, zip, nada.

 

This year?

PILOT: B
               February 2015                                 March  2015
Type             HH:MM   Sorties   FT%        Type             HH:MM   Sorties  FT%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albatros D.Va   29:28     141     65.4        Albatros D.Va   46:35     220    72.4
Gotha G.V        9:14      33     20.5        Gotha G.V        5:44      27     8.9
DFW C.V          2:14       7      5.0        SPAD 13.C1       5:07      27     8.0        
SPAD 13.C1       2:08      12      4.7        Fokker D.VIIF    3:43      16     5.8
Halb CL.II       1:58       4      4.4        Halb D.II        3:11      11     4.9
               --------------                                --------------
                45:02     197                                 64:20     301

Interesting. This pilot still flies a favorite plane the bulk of the time, but now, it's the Albatros DVa. From zero a year ago to plane of choice today.  What about his prior favorites? Gone. His former #1 (Pfalz D.III) and #4/#2 (Dr.1) didn't even crack the top five and in Feb. they were flown for less than an hour each.

 

Are you seeing a trend yet?

 

Maybe the FM is better, maybe it's not.

Maybe things are more accurate now, and maybe they're not.

 

But, I can tell you from having been in online gaming for more than a decade, when you see the player base (particularly, the elite players) abandon their former favorites for the new FoTM (Flavor of the Month), you can be nearly certain there's a game balance problem that just got introduced into the mix.

 

For me, these numbers are compelling and unequivocal.

 

Consequently, we have already made adjustments to the first 2 wargrounds maps, and we'll definitely be adjusting the rest of them as well...  YMMV

 

 

If you got this far, once again, I apologize for the length of this post and I greatly appreciate you taking to the time to read it and follow along.

 

Salute!

:icon_e_salute:


  • 3

#487 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6535
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 07 April 2015 - 01:28

 

But, I can tell you from having been in online gaming for more than a decade, when you see the player base (particularly, the elite players) abandon their former favorites for the new FoTM (Flavor of the Month), you can be nearly certain there's a game balance problem that just got introduced into the mix.

 

 

That might be the most ridiculous "conclusion" I have ever seen.  People aren't moving to the D.Va because there is some sort of game balance problem, they're moving to the D.Va because it isn't a complete piece of crap any more.  You can actually run away from Camels now.   However, if you look at the Camel killboard you can see that it's still killing plenty of D.Va's.  

 

Opponent Sopwith Camel - won Sopwith Camel - lost   WL
Albatros D.Va                         64                              28   2.3

 

Game balance problem, my ass.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#488 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16526

Posted 07 April 2015 - 02:15

I gotta agree with BSR on this one - IMHO those numbers do not support any argument that either (1) the D.Va's FM was "over-corrected" to something improperly uber, or (2) that there is any sort of game balance issue in desperate need of attention.

 

I'm not trying to establish any particular position here as to whether the FM revisions (to the D.Va or the Camel or whatever) were actually implemented correctly.  However, if it were the case that (i) the D.Va was inappropriately borked relative to its logical/likely opponents before the FM revisions and (ii) the D.Va was improved by the FM revisions to an appropriate level vis-a-vis its opponents, that would certainly explain or be consistent with the fact that the numbers show that pilots like A and B refused to fly the D.Va while it was borked but are happy to fly it now that it has been fixed.

 

And the total numbers for this year over last year don't prove anything to me either, except for the fact that Pilots A and B were not alone in refusing the fly the D.Va while it was borked or in being happy to fly it now that it has been fixed.

 

And as far as balance goes, in the top 5 planes shown in the figures for this year there are 2 Central types (D.Va and Dr.1) and 3 Entente types (Camel, SPAD13 and SE5a) - the Central types logged a total of about 1058 hours between them and the Entente types a total of about 925 hours between them - fairly balanced from a mathematical sense.  I don't know how these plane choices were affected by the mission type/plane set availability on the server(s) from which these numbers were derived (another reason that the numbers can't really be said to prove anything useful), but if I were a Central pilot going up against Camels, SPAD13s and SE5a's I'd certainly be more inclined to take a D.Va than a Dr.1, so it doesn't surprise me at all to see that the D.Va numbers in those charts are so much higher than the Dr.1 numbers.

 

Again, I don't see those numbers as providing any support at all to the conclusions being reached in FourSpeed's post.


  • 1

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online: RoF SPAM killer markings 66.jpg


#489 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 07 April 2015 - 02:22

Fourspeed specifically says he talks about player trends rather than which plane kills which :)

 

 

This said, D.Va was the best scout Germans had until Fokker D.VII appeared (Dr.I being situational and other scouts being generally inferior) and most flown German scout, so the D.Va monomania among German players, on servers that don't have D.VIIF/D VIII means power balance between German scouts is closer to history/reality. D.Va was default mount of German pilot before summer 1918. What would you have majority of German players fly on servers that have D.Va but not 1918 scouts (by you I mean you who read this)? Narrowly specialised Dr.I that Germans themselves never tried assigning to ordinary squadrons? Pfalz, which most German pilots flew when they had no Albatroses?

 

FourSpeed, can the statistics be narrowed to specific missions, to count flight times of Albatros D.Va and Fokker D.VIIF only on the maps that have both planes (without having to unlock D.VIIF vis photo recon)?

I'm relieved to see that flight times and sorties of top Entente planes did not diminish that much since last year... whether this means there is no mass  migration of Entente players to Albatroses, or that interest in game increased sice December path to compensate... it's a good thing. 


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#490 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1773

Posted 07 April 2015 - 03:11


FourSpeed, can the statistics be narrowed to specific missions, to count flight times of Albatros D.Va and Fokker D.VIIF only on the maps that have both planes (without having to unlock D.VIIF vis photo recon)?

 

 

The short answer is sort of - (can't tell in stats if a plane is tied to an unlock or not, or even part of the plane set), but flight time could be broken down by individual mission.

 

The longer answer is that I'm not particularly keen to write all the SQL code to do all that to show a trend that is quite clear (imho) already.

 

Frankly,  the missions haven't significantly changed in that time (as I'm the guy that would have been changing them) and yet we still see a very distinct 2-1 selection bias for the Albie DVa in reference to other popular planes, which stayed (loosely) constant (excluding the Pfalz D3 which has sunk into obscurity) along with several high level players (I've only shown two) who have completely altered their flying patterns to leap on the proverbial bandwagon.

 

This has all occurred since December, and nobody here thinks this has, or will have, any bearing or effect on game balance?   Okie Dokie....

 

Also, the reason why kill rates are completely meaningless is that they take absolutely zero account of  player numbers (faction bias), teamwork, tactics, or any other variables that would have a bearing on kills.

 

The *only* bias in Flight Time is whether a plane is available and whether a plane is of interest to a player.

 

Since the maps have been mostly constant for the past couple years, the real variable is player interest, and it is 100% clear that players believe that the Alb DVa is more advantageous to fly, by a 2-1 margin over anything else ... since December.

 

If a sudden 2-1 preference for a single plane type over ALL others isn't in any way significant - then clearly *facts* aren't of much interest here.

 

Carry on.

 

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#491 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 07 April 2015 - 03:48

4Speed: your conclusion is right in a way that there was a substanial shift of preference among Central pilots. It shows that the fm update changed the balance of the game - but only within the Central side. And I must say, righfully so. The main opponent of Entente pilots between Fall 1917 and Summer 1918 was the D.Va. This is now reflected in game. I don't feel, however that this threw up the entente vs central balance, and I mean historical balance.

In short: yes there is a balance shift, but IMO it's not a balance problem.
  • 1

#492 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6535
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:02

Also, the reason why kill rates are completely meaningless is that they take absolutely zero account of  player numbers (faction bias), teamwork, tactics, or any other variables that would have a bearing on kills.

 

 

Arrant nonsense.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#493 Panthercules

Panthercules
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 16526

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:07

I'm not saying the numbers don't show a trend that the popularity of or flight time in the DVa have dramatically increased.  All I'm saying is that the conclusions being drawn from that fact/trend (that there's a game balance problem of some kind and/or that the DVa has a FM problem) are not supported by and do not flow from those facts.

 

My point is simply that:

 

(1) those numbers and the obvious change in popularity of the DVa they reflect are completely consistent with the conclusion that the DVa was simply "broken" before and is "fixed" now.  There is evidence in your post that the increased popularity of the DVa is a fact - but just because it is a fact does not mean that it is a problem, and I see no evidence in your post that such fact is a problem. 

 

(2)  While you say you are not focusing on kill rates (rightly pointing out that such data can be meaningless in certain circumstances), I don't see any way to completely avoid the question of kill rates/ratios and still make any sort of point about there being a balance problem.  From a balance perspective, why does it possibly matter what plane the Central players are flying the most if the plane is performing reasonably well (historically appropriately) against its logical/historically appropriate Entente opponents?  And how should one make such a determination if not by some sort of reference to the relevant kill rate/ratio numbers?  If those numbers don't reveal that the DVa is performing unusually/inappropriately well against those logical opponents, then how is that a "balance" problem?

 

The one thing that struck me as odd about the numbers you posted was the lack of comparisons to the FD7/FD7F.  I think that would be a much more interesting comparison and one that might reveal something about a possible problem with the DVa depending on how the numbers came out, but as Trupobaw mentioned perhaps those comparisons aren't possible/reliable because of the plane mix and conditions that might be placed on FD7/FD7F availability.  

 

If we saw reliable numbers that said that Central pilots who owned both planes were significantly favoring the DVa over the FD7/FD7F in missions where both planes were equally available, then I'd agree that maybe such numbers might make one wonder about whether the DVa FM changes had gone a bit uber.  But numbers like you posted that simply show the DVa being more popular than other Central types besides the FD7/FD7F don't strike me as evidence of any sort of problem - they just seem to reflect the fact that the DVa was the best scout generally available to the Central powers except for the FD7/FD7F.  Again, a fact, but not a problem.


  • 1

New "Useful Materials" page now available: http://riseofflight....ks/#entry628960
Useful Skinning-related Info:  http://riseofflight....g-related-info/  
Spammers banned while still online: RoF SPAM killer markings 66.jpg


#494 JG1_Vonrd_J10

JG1_Vonrd_J10
  • Posts: 515
  • LocationOakland CA

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:18

Well, it could be that the DVa is the new toy in the box now (as far as Central is concerned). Since the change it is IS essentially a completely new aircraft. Whenever a new plane is introduced many people will fly it much more than the old, familiar mounts. (Ever heard of the "New Cow Syndrome?") :icon_lol:

 

I do think that the FM revision was a positive step, but not perfect...

 

I have noted quite a few Centrals flying the plain vanilla DVII more now even though I don't think much, if anything, was changed except that the Camel is no longer Uber.


  • 0

#495 JG1_Vonrd_J10

JG1_Vonrd_J10
  • Posts: 515
  • LocationOakland CA

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:28

I also think that ROF doesn't portray enough adverse yaw in all of its FMs. 

 

I also think that ROF doesn't portray enough adverse yaw in all of its FMs. 

With the exception of the Gotha... the only way to turn it on the ground (except for differential throttle) is with opposite aileron, not very realistic IMHO. In flight, the adverse yaw seems more realistic (says one who's most adverse yaw experience is an Aeronca Champ   :icon_e_biggrin: ).


  • 0

#496 JG1_Vonrd_J10

JG1_Vonrd_J10
  • Posts: 515
  • LocationOakland CA

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:38

​The adverse yaw depends on several things as wing design,aileron size, shape, deflection and wing tip washout,(the DIII&DVa has plenty of wing tip washout). 

Not sure if washout would affect adverse yaw. Washout is designed to prevent tip stalling and an incipient spin from occurring by making the inner sections of the wing stall first. Adverse yaw is traditionally dealt with by differential aileron throw... more up than down aileron.


  • 0

#497 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6535
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:50

The idea that people moving from a plane that is now slower (Dr1) or worse (Pfalz) to a plane that is faster (D.Va) is a sign of game balance issues is completely ridiculous.

 

BTW, given my choice I would fly nothing but the Spad and my kill to death ratio would probably improve significantly.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#498 JG1_Vonrd_J10

JG1_Vonrd_J10
  • Posts: 515
  • LocationOakland CA

Posted 07 April 2015 - 04:51

 

Richthofen's beefs with the "lousy Albatross" D.V were it didn't climb as well as the D.III and the wings were still weak so "you can't risk anything with it." No complaints about the speed. Entente pilots referred to it as "the German SPAD."

So what has the new patch done to the D.Va that so upset the balance of the universe that it caused a massive desertion among the Entente forces? From my reading of this board it seems to be: too easy to fly, too maneuverable, retains energy too well, and climbs too well.

Easy to fly isn't a reason for some massive shift. Central planes have always been easier. I don't recall the patch having made Entente planes harder to fly. Learn to fly your plane and this goes away.

The new D.Va seems to be a bit better turner, but still worse than a Camel. If you're turn fighting it with an SE5 or SPAD you screwed up your attack. A little more maneuverable D.Va isn't altering the historical fighting styles of the principal combatants. Entente pilots just need to treat it with a bit more respect.

The D.Va retaining energy does increase the window of vulnerability for an extending Entente scout, but again it isn't altering the historical fighting styles. SEs and SPADs still dominate energy fighting.

As to climb, the D.Va and D.III are now similar. An advantage for the D.Va for sure, but not universe altering.

My conclusion? The notion that the new D.Va is an uber machine that has destroyed the on-line game balance is bogus. The D.Va is better than is should be, but not the dominating power some here imply. Yes, the Entente needs to be smarter and maybe work harder, but if people are abandoning the Entente side, it's for some reason other than the new D.Va. The D.Va is just a scapegoat.

Pending another FM review, we are stuck with what we have. But the new FMs are much better than pre-patch in representing the actual historical aircraft relative performance. What game balance needs is a free-to-play early Central scout to match up with the now free N17.

 

Anyone flying against 1PL has experienced this :P 

 


  • 0

#499 GrahamshereGT

GrahamshereGT
  • Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • LocationDeroche,Britsh Columbia,Canada

Posted 07 April 2015 - 06:22

I agree, the Entente do need to get better, but most that are new to the game seem to go Entente and thats just easy targets to the central flyers, they fly to the central base and get picked off like berries, fast way to chase away new players if you ask me, but hey we need those kill streeks to look good .   But I also see something, When a top pilot comes in to wargrounds and fly Entente the big stat lover's scatter like rats from a lion.They leave the server or just sit and wait for the better pilot to leave.  So thats were alot of their top scores are coming from.

Wish there was a way to get new pilots to learn team work right off the start. It'll realy help in the long run, hey best squad in real ww1 was raf squad 51 , But they had real se5,s and camels.


  • 0

#500 JG1_Lee_J10

JG1_Lee_J10
  • Posts: 160

Posted 07 April 2015 - 12:30

The simple fact is the "new" preference for the D.Va actually demonstrates game balance has been restored. The D.Va was historically the predominant Central scout pre Fokker D.VII, and that is now reflected in the server stats. All this turmoil over Central pilots flying the plane they were most likely to be issued in real life is nonsense. The game balance issue was when nobody was flying the D.Va. That has been fixed and RoF, while not perfect, now presents a much better representation of the relative performance of the principal combatants.


Best real RFC/RAF squadron was 56 Squadron. They introduced the SE5 into combat in April 1917 and flew it exclusively the rest of the war. It's pilots included Ball and McCudden.
  • 0

#501 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 07 April 2015 - 16:44

Pfalzcopters pilots dropped their Old and Busted machine for the New Hotness D.Va, which is just as easy to fly as the Pfalz was before the update, and is now fast to boot.

If you don't accept that simple fact, you're in denial. This has nothing to do with the Camel, SPAD, Dr.I and D.VIIF still being better performers in the hands of an experienced pilot.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#502 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 07 April 2015 - 17:30

Pfalzcopters pilots dropped their Old and Busted now historically lackluster machine for the New Hotness historically superior D.Va, which is just as easy to fly as the Pfalz was before the update, and is now fast to boot the game should be encouraging them to fly all along, to keep pretence of historical accuracy, and failed until recently.
 

Fixed  :icon_e_salute: . Not sure where the problem is supposed to lie, though. That people who always go for best plane now choose D.Va over D.IIIa? So did the real life German pilots, it only means the planes comparative performance is closer to real life. Once more, it was the best thing Germans had for mass deployment until May 1918. That we have people who always go for best planes? No way to fix that. That to many Warground maps have D.Va? I trust FourSpeed will fix it, and am relieved to read he's working on the problem  :icon_e_salute:

Again, ask yourself what should be first choice scout of the average Joe German pilot flying on map that has D.Va and has no summer 1918 planes? Fokker Dr.I? Pfalz D.IIIa? Albatros D.III? To borrow Bender's rethoric, if aswer is anything but Albators D.Va, you are in denial.

 

It would be interesting to see an early 1918 scenario in "quiet' sector,  featuring underdog German units with last produced D.IIIs rather than D.Vas. Say, a Channel / Ypres area  scenario can have Marine Feldjastas (Albatros D.III and new Pfalzes D.IIIa), fighting Belgian Hanriots,  Pups(!) and Spad 7s (with Dr.Is, Camels or Spads unlockable via recon). Or Bavarian D.III/D.IIIa unit facing French/American squadrons (Spads, N.28s, more Spads) .


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#503 Speckled_Jim

Speckled_Jim
  • Posts: 387
  • LocationAmsterdam

Posted 07 April 2015 - 18:38

Pfalzcopters pilots dropped their Old and Busted machine for the New Hotness D.Va, which is just as easy to fly as the Pfalz was before the update, and is now fast to boot.

If you don't accept that simple fact, you're in denial. This has nothing to do with the Camel, SPAD, Dr.I and D.VIIF still being better performers in the hands of an experienced pilot.

 

I agree with everything you've said on this subject since the patch. But, you know what? I just don't care. I'm going to fly Allied/Entente on multiplayer regardless.

 

I mean let's face it, it took gavagai about four years of constant, er, pressure, to get any changes at all. Can you really be bothered to repeat his performance?

 

At the end of the day every time I fire up the game and go on AF, things seem much the same (on average) as ever. I don't think this is the main thing

that effects multiplayer numbers. More that some people will rise to the almost vertical learning curve, and others will not. If anything the more powerful, yet easy-to-fly

DVa might attract more players. rather than the very powerful, but tricky to learn Camel/DR1 pre-patch.

 

But that's just me, and I make no claims to either rationality or sanity.


  • 0

#504 JG1_Lee_J10

JG1_Lee_J10
  • Posts: 160

Posted 07 April 2015 - 20:49

Bender, people were flying the Pfalzcopters because it gave some small chance against the uber Camels. Both unrealistic FMs. Now the balance is better overall and Central pilots are flying the D.Va, as they should be historically.
  • 0

#505 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6535
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 07 April 2015 - 21:22

And now we'll be getting historical 20% fueled Camels to stop their pilots from crying. 


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#506 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 07 April 2015 - 21:53

 

It would be interesting to see an early 1918 scenario in "quiet' sector,  featuring underdog German units with last produced D.IIIs rather than D.Vas. Say, a Channel / Ypres area  scenario can have Marine Feldjastas (Albatros D.III and new Pfalzes D.IIIa), fighting Belgian Hanriots,  Pups(!) and Spad 7s (with Dr.Is, Camels or Spads unlockable via recon). Or Bavarian D.III/D.IIIa unit facing French/American squadrons (Spads, N.28s, more Spads) .

 

Listen to this man!


  • 0

#507 Capt.TeddyBear

Capt.TeddyBear
  • Posts: 577

Posted 07 April 2015 - 21:55

And now we'll be getting historical 20% fueled Camels to stop their pilots from crying. 

I have an issue of fuel levels being used a way to 'balance' the planes i.e. penalise some and give a leg up to others and think all planes should have the same fuel level which should be no less than 80%.

 

If one plane carry's 40 litres more than another, so what? The planes were designed to fly that way so lets all experience the way the plane was flown not some arbitrary fuel level balancing act that is prone to bias and incorrect perceptions.

 

 

In my view the Albatross keeps its energy to well in a lot of manoeuvres but it is not an Uber plane and I believe that FourSpeed with all good intentions is way of the mark in his analysis which I believe discards vital information.


  • 0

Free Krusty & Wodewick!

 

Verified Gaming JerkGT  


#508 GrahamshereGT

GrahamshereGT
  • Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • LocationDeroche,Britsh Columbia,Canada

Posted 07 April 2015 - 22:29

Lepracune you dont like it dont fly . sulk all you want I  dont care, or just keep shooting down us lesser pilots and run when the real pones come in as usual. so stop crying about you litte central side. also the camel was the top plane in ww1 untill the d7f and that was way late in the war, plus why do we need limited camel, there was how many camels built compared to the dr1, oh thats right need to make it right for the central side, they whinned for so long . Any time you want to take your dva up against me 1 v 1 lep head on no sneeking up on me like you usually do. and when FigelGt shows up be a man for a change and stick around and show us how good you are. Over and out. YO GT'S


  • 0

#509 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6535
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 07 April 2015 - 22:49

Lepracune you dont like it dont fly . sulk all you want I  dont care, or just keep shooting down us lesser pilots and run when the real pones come in as usual. so stop crying about you litte central side. also the camel was the top plane in ww1 untill the d7f and that was way late in the war, plus why do we need limited camel, there was how many camels built compared to the dr1, oh thats right need to make it right for the central side, they whinned for so long . Any time you want to take your dva up against me 1 v 1 lep head on no sneeking up on me like you usually do. and when FigelGt shows up be a man for a change and stick around and show us how good you are. Over and out. YO GT'S

 

Sparky, I was playing when the Camel could run down and kill everything on the server.  These are good times compared to that.

 

Also, if you don't like being bounced, check your 6 occasionally.


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#510 GrahamshereGT

GrahamshereGT
  • Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • LocationDeroche,Britsh Columbia,Canada

Posted 07 April 2015 - 23:13

I do check my 6 all the time, most of the time im trying to help the newbies not getting hit by you and your buddies so I'm on the team chat, dumb me but some one has to help them or you and your buddies will keep slaughtering them. And the reason the camel was doing that before the fm change was because it was the best plane in ww1 period. thats why they built so many of them but Im fine with it as is, I realise you need something on your side to match it but the only thing I dont like is when the Entente get crappy planes like the n28 and spad 7 150 hp against a dva, if were going to make things fair give us somthing that can fight back, and something that turns  because of the fire ppower the dva has we could never run fast enough to get out of the way.

And I also played before the fm change and flew central most of the time but didnt see much problem. maybe because I,m with the GT's and they know how to handle these planes good or bad. Mostly FigelGT and FragelGT. Ill see you on wg BSR or who ever you are, Watch your 6 ill be coming in my camel.


  • 0

#511 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6535
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 07 April 2015 - 23:29

I do check my 6 all the time, most of the time im trying to help the newbies not getting hit by you and your buddies so I'm on the team chat, dumb me but some one has to help them or you and your buddies will keep slaughtering them.

 

480c7d272c36496aad7670b47dcf0f99.jpg

 

Glad to see you're helping newbies.  I'm helping them, and you, learn the importance of checking their 6.  If you're checking your 6, you should not have a problem with me "sneaking around".

 

 

And the reason the camel was doing that before the fm change was because it was the best plane in ww1 period. 

 

um... No.  It was a good turn fighter, but it was slow.  Prior to the FM change it was able to run down every plane on the German side.  Now it can't.  It's much more realistic now.  


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#512 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 07 April 2015 - 23:56

I'm not saying the numbers don't show a trend that the popularity of or flight time in the DVa have dramatically increased.  All I'm saying is that the conclusions being drawn from that fact/trend (that there's a game balance problem of some kind and/or that the DVa has a FM problem) are not supported by and do not flow from those facts.

 

 

This is true.  Game balance is not the same thing as popularity.  A big part of it is the newness factor.  A plane that was such a turd for 5 years suddenly becomes competitive; that is exciting.

 

But for my part my flying time in the Pfalz D.IIIa has increased.  I wouldn't touch the thing before because I'm not a helo pilot.


  • 0

#513 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4147

Posted 08 April 2015 - 07:02

 

 

But for my part my flying time in the Pfalz D.IIIa has increased.  I wouldn't touch the thing before because I'm not a helo pilot.

Unwittingly you are. A vertical zoom-climb is all thrust with zero vertical-lift and no stall. The D.IIIa seemingly had excessive kinetic energy. But I get your point.

:icon_e_smile:


  • 0

#514 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 08 April 2015 - 08:18

This is true.  Game balance is not the same thing as popularity.  A big part of it is the newness factor.  A plane that was such a turd for 5 years suddenly becomes competitive; that is exciting.

 

 

It very much is. 

 

But for my part my flying time in the Pfalz D.IIIa has increased.  I wouldn't touch the thing before because I'm not a helo pilot.

 

I have recently logged my first ever flying hours in MP  Camel  ;).


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#515 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 12 April 2015 - 00:40

I'm gonna all cap this :

 

THE DVa WAS NEVER A GOOD PLANE.  

 

Both sides said so.  So when BSR et al claim that the 'DVa is fixed now' no.  It was historically a bad a broken aircraft.   It was never much more than the DIII.  It was QUICKLY phased out from the front line units as soon as *any* other plane was available.   People see the 'new top speed' and think that just because ONE number is right, the rest of the performance numbers MUST be right.  Gameplay shows this to be untrue.

 

Can SOMEONE PLEASE post a source that claims the DVa was a good airplane????


  • 0

#516 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 12 April 2015 - 00:43

And the maps are DEFINATELY UNBALANCED.  When the allies get an SE5a and an N17 to fly against DVa's and DIIIs that's a HUGE balance issue.

 

Nobody knows how to fly the N17 and so people try turn the SE5a.  Central wipes the map clean.

 

FUN and BALANCE need to come first of the few whiners (since this is a thing now) complaining about 'historical accuracy'.  As they fly thier bomber 100m off the deck and use team speak.


  • 0

#517 Pirato

Pirato
  • Posts: 1595
  • LocationUnder a Bridge

Posted 12 April 2015 - 19:43

And the maps are DEFINATELY UNBALANCED.  When the allies get an SE5a and an N17 to fly against DVa's and DIIIs that's a HUGE balance issue.

 

Nobody knows how to fly the N17 and so people try turn the SE5a.  Central wipes the map clean.

 

FUN and BALANCE need to come first of the few whiners (since this is a thing now) complaining about 'historical accuracy'.  As they fly thier bomber 100m off the deck and use team speak.

The Se5a is the better plane and more than a good match against any Albatros. And there are people that know how to fly the N17 and how to use it's strenghts against the heavy Albatroses. I'd even Dogfight with an Albatros when flying the Se5a, using it's roll and climb aswell as the Stabilizer to prolong a stall etc. It's doable but requires some practice and knowledge. And of course enough air under the wings. Low altitude mudmoving doesn't count as Air combat, if someone choses to fly at treetops he has to live with the consequences and downsides like not beeing able to dive away or to regain speed . The D5a is certainly not correct,imo it rolls too fast and is overall too stable. But it doesn't throw the Game balance totally overboard. We just need to adapt to the new situation.


  • 0

Dann gibt's Heulen und Zähne klammern, für das ganze Lumpenpack.
Dann ist Schluss mit "Tischlein deck' dich", da gibt's "Knüppel aus dem Sack"!


#518 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 14 April 2015 - 12:24

I'm gonna all cap this :

 

THE DVa WAS NEVER A GOOD PLANE.  

 

[...]

 

Can SOMEONE PLEASE post a source that claims the DVa was a good airplane????

 

 

Sure. Adam and Wushoff re-familiarising Lothar for Richthoffen with British planes performance in September 1917, written down by Karl Bogenschatz and recalled in "Fight over Flander's Fields":

 

 

Sopwith Pup and Sopwith Camel - high angle attack from above and either behind or to the face can be performed almost with impunity. Technically they are both outperformed by Albatros. SE should be attacked the same way, but the plane is very dangerous, it's match for Albatros and at high altitudes even outperforms it. It usually attacks from behind. The Spad with 140HP engine is inferior to Albatros, let alone Fokker. The Spad with stronger engine is superior to Albatros in climb and maneuvrability. The newest triplane - you know, with all plates equal length - is very maneuvrable and withstands steepest dives, but is no better than Albatros. Nieuport is very maneuvrable, can run away from you by diving, but in every other respect is inferior to Albatros.
 

 

Notice that it comes form the same people who claimed that Albatros was not good enough for them... they didn't say it was outmatched by opposing planes on 1 by 1 basis among themselves, and were able to effectively fight the opposing types. D.Va was widely denounced as not good enough improvement on D.III in face of improvements to British planes; during Bloody April Germans matched superior fighters with enemy numbers, with introduction of Camels and SEs  Albatroses D.Va could not deliver this  quality advantage while Germans were still outnumbered, hence cry for better planes. Does not mean that German planes were inferior on one to one basis.

 

FUN and BALANCE need to come first of the few whiners (since this is a thing now) complaining about 'historical accuracy'.  As they fly thier bomber 100m off the deck and use team speak.

WAR and THUNDER may be a good place to seek these. Last time I checked RoF was a historical sim, not balanced flying game where everybody wins...


  • 2

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#519 J2_Oelmann

J2_Oelmann
  • Posts: 292
  • LocationGermany

Posted 15 April 2015 - 08:48

Since when is or was War balanced?
  • 0

#520 FragelGT_

FragelGT_
  • Posts: 289

Posted 15 April 2015 - 16:12

 

 Last time I checked RoF was a historical sim

 

LOL... now that's hilarious!

 

Oh?... you meant the attempt to have "historically" accurate representation of WW1 aircraft? They look close to the real thing, I'll give them that. As for flight characteristics... I'll grade the GAME at a C-, not even close enough to give them a cigar. But, as for a air combat sim, where one can fly virtually any of the aircraft available in the GAME, against, AI or other online human gamers,  I'll give them a B+, only because of the eye candy.


  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users