Jump to content
AnPetrovich

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?  

289 members have voted

  1. 1. Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    • Befoe 3.008
      65
    • After 3.008
      224


Recommended Posts

Flight-simmers are weird. I'm one of them so I know, but I have learned about the irrational demands of this community like few people have through a decade of building them and selling them.

 

You claim want features you never play and we suck if we don't have them (we know we have the data) and you claim features we know to know not to be popular to be the "key" to success (we know we have the data). This is the chaos the internet forces on companies like mine. The only solution business wise is to make everything for everyone even if it is to please one small segment of the market who shout the loudest. SP folks will not buy a product even if they don't play MP and vice versa. It's weird and illogical. Simmers care most about the "dream" or "vision" of what they are buying into. When our vision doesn't match yours it doesn't work. But the key is understanding that that vision is not actually supported by players behavior. 

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

Says who? Alive meaning what? Sales? Because that is not true for a sim like ours with a robust SP experience and 95% of our users only play SP. It's content and improvements that keep games so called "alive" from a sales perspective. MP just keeps certain groups of players playing for longer periods.

 

All we would like to have what worked in the before the latest patch. We MP players payed the price for the content, too.

Edited by -[HRAF]BubiHUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Hey man, i really did not intend to insult you or anything. I am really trying to be civil about all of this but criticism is still allowed no?

 

Concerning the different conclusions, i think you are aware of my bug report in my signature. You can also check out:

 

- Rapid Fire: the Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces

 

- Flying Guns: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations

 

Like i said already, i have no issue admitting when i am wrong if that's the case. As of right now, i have absolutely now idea on what the 20mm HE values are based upon. It is nothing game breaking and neither will it stop me from enjoying the game but i still considered it as wrongly modelled. 

 

Cheers. 

 

 

 

 

 

You are saying we have a conclusion different from your sources. I'm telling you there is no 'conclusion' from our side only that right now our results are quite believable based on the evidence we've seen and users feedback. You keep arguing your sources contradicts out conclusion of which there is none. This whole damn product line is a work in progress so things change over time. But I have NO TIME right now to continue to tweak the damage or MP issues because I have limited people and we work in a linear fashion.

 

Jason

4 minutes ago, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

All we would like to have what worked in the before the latest patch. We MP players payed the price for the content, too.

 

It works as before, we just chose to add a debugging clue into it. Now you are just more aware of what's going on. You have no idea the extent and weird things Han and boys have had to do to find random, strange bugs with MP. Sometimes, they are discovered by mistake. 

 

Jason

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

You should read my comments AGAIN more closely. Why does no one listen? No one posts such discussions just to talk. They do it i this forum so we notice their opinions. Otherwise they would do it elsewhere.

 

I post here to talk. Why'd I want to do this on another forum? The mountain biking community is not really interested in this kind of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

You are saying we have a conclusion different from your sources. I'm telling you there is no 'conclusion' from our side only that right now our results are quite believable based on the evidence we've seen and users feedback. You keep arguing your sources contradicts out conclusion of which there is none. This whole damn product line is a work in progress so things change over time. But I have NO TIME right now to continue to tweak the damage or MP issues because I have limited people and we work in a linear fashion.

 

Jason

 

It works as before, we just chose to add a debugging clue into it. Now you are just more aware of what's going on.

 

Jason

You just stated something what we Mp players already knew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you guys make me laugh.  But in a sad way.  Feedback is great.  Goading Jason into online fights is lame.  Knock it off.  I've avoided this thread thinking it just a piss fest.  I see I was right.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

I post here to talk. Why'd I want to do this on another forum? The mountain biking community is not really interested in this kind of stuff.

 

There are other sim forums and when I stopped participating and taking their crap to focus on our forum exclusively those forums slowed down. Generally speaking, you guys like knowing we are sometimes listening. Which is fine because we do like well mannered thoughtful feedback. This damage discussion has gone off the rails a long time ago and it sucked in MP folks making it more crazy. Facts are we have taken steps to improve MP (final result is not done) and Damage Modeling (super final results not done) but I do not have a time-table for when I can claim we are done. In the meantime enjoy all that we have built and there is much to enjoy. Sales this year have proven we are on the right track.

 

Now go enjoy your New Year's. Thread not close to keep the poll open. I'm done with it though.

 

Jason

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

You are saying we have a conclusion different from your sources. I'm telling you there is no 'conclusion' from our side only that right now our results are quite believable based on the evidence we've seen and users feedback. You keep arguing your sources contradicts out conclusion of which there is none. This whole damn product line is a work in progress so things change over time. But I have NO TIME right now to continue to tweak the damage or MP issues because I have limited people and we work in a linear fashion.

 

Jason

 

I think that my sources and bug report contradict that the results are believable, that is all. 

 

I totally understand that you are short handed on people working on the product and that money is probably tight too, really, i do. All people want when making a bug report or trying to bring an issue to your knowledge is something along the lines of "yeah you are right and we are going to adjust it but currently we don't have time but it is on the list" as long as the report is correct. They don't go through all the trouble to try to piss you off.

Edited by Operation_Ivy
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

 

You are saying we have a conclusion different from your sources. I'm telling you there is no 'conclusion' from our side only that right now our results are quite believable based on the evidence we've seen and users feedback. You keep arguing your sources contradicts out conclusion of which there is none. This whole damn product line is a work in progress so things change over time. But I have NO TIME right now to continue to tweak the damage or MP issues because I have limited people and we work in a linear fashion.

 

Jason

 

It works as before, we just chose to add a debugging clue into it. Now you are just more aware of what's going on. You have no idea the extent and weird things Han and boys have had to do to find random, strange bugs with MP. Sometimes, they are discovered by mistake. 

 

Jason

All you need to do is ask, if you need testers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Operation_Ivy said:

 

Hey man, i really did not intend to insult you or anything. I am really trying to be civil about all of this but criticism is still allowed no?

 

Concerning the different conclusions, i think you are aware of my bug report in my signature. You can also check out:

 

- Rapid Fire: the Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces

 

- Flying Guns: Development of Aircraft Guns, Ammunition and Installations

 

Like i said already, i have no issue admitting when i am wrong if that's the case. As of right now, i have absolutely now idea on what the 20mm HE values are based upon. It is nothing game breaking and neither will it stop me from enjoying the game but i still considered it as wrongly modelled. 

 

Cheers. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think the issue is less that there's civil criticism and more that the criticism is never-ending. One of the hallmarks of the sim community, and what has been certainly evident to me over the 3 or 4 years I've been involved in the community is that there is a vocal group of users who wouldn't be satisfied even if you gave them a real plane, and sent them back to WW2. 

 

Furthermore, the dev team either delivers what they say they will, or over-delivers by a wide margin, so why some people in this forum who've been around as long as I have always show constant doubt that they know what they're doing puzzles me. 

 

As for the damage model, 80% of the issues I have with damage model are from Wings of Liberty being a potato server, and the other 20% are  because the guy was Elanski and can take the wings off a fruitfly with a ford focus. 

Edited by GridiroN
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

there is a vocal group of users who wouldn't be satisfied even if you gave them a real plane, and sent them back to WW2

 

No refly option. That would suck. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

No refly option. That would suck. :)

 

At least there's re-arm and resupply in real life though amirite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for me this sim is way above anything else available,

Latest DM  not 'realistic' enough, it never will be..... its a game.

Nobody has ever said this is the last update, and Jason and the 777 guys will keep striving to get as close to the real thing as they possible can given the restraints of the game.

I know there are a lot of passionate simmers out there, i'm one of them, and so is Jason (or he wouldn't bother to reply)

So keep up the good work.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GridiroN said:

 

I think the issue is less that there's civil criticism and more that the criticism is never-ending. One of the hallmarks of the sim community, and what has been certainly evident to me over the 3 or 4 years I've been involved in the community is that there is a vocal group of users who wouldn't be satisfied even if you gave them a real plane, and sent them back to WW2. 

 

I think that the last part is unfair. Yes, it is true that some are chronic complainers, but those can usually be counted on the fingers of a single hand. The larger group in the "regularly complaining" minority are guys who seek perfection. They do not expect perfection however. They just seek it. At least if we look at the "complainers" who have anything to come with other than a complete lack of sources outside of the Dogfights TV show. Just because something works fine we shouldn't stop asking how it could be made better. If that was the case we'd still be living in caves, without fire, and hitting each other with sticks and throwing poop at each other.

 

Of course it must be tiring to not have the resources to work on all the things that people would like to see improved, and if anything having to be very selective with where the development work goes, but if anything it is the sim community's desire to seek absolute realism - even if presented in a simplified form, like for example the plane interaction in IL-2 - that is its driving force. A large part (most? all?) of the sim community are where they are because they want to immerse themselves in something authentic.

 

 

21 minutes ago, GridiroN said:

As for the damage model, 80% of the issues I have with damage model are from Wings of Liberty being a potato server, and the other 20% are  because the guy was Elanski and can take the wings off a fruitfly with a ford focus. 

 

I'm having issues on all servers currently, and in singleplayer. I like what the 3.008 damage model strives to achieve, but when I for example have to pelt a AI-controlled Yak-1 with 20+ rounds with my MG 151/20 for them to finally go down, then something is awry. I can't say what is wrong because I'm not sitting with the code or even decent debug feedback, but I can tell that when that isn't a unique thing but happens in almost every fight, then it doesn't match any factual analysis of WW2 air combat that I've ever come across/had presented to me.

Edited by Inkompetent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

I think that the last part is unfair. Yes, it is true that some are chronic complainers, but those can usually be counted on the fingers of a single hand. The larger group in the "regularly complaining" minority are guys who seek perfection. They do not expect perfection however. They just seek it. At least if we look at the "complainers" who have anything to come with other than a complete lack of sources outside of the Dogfights TV show. Just because something works fine we shouldn't stop asking how it could be made better. If that was the case we'd still be living in caves, without fire, and hitting each other with sticks and throwing poop at each other.

 

You are right to some degree, sure. There's a larger pot of people who simply feel the sim is imperfect (and I do think it's important to think of this as a sim and not a GAME; game implies balance). The problem with that is, and I have always told people this, that if you think the sim/dev team is wrong, it's no use for people to simply complain on a forum. No developer needs or wants to hear that. I mean I have a youtube channel, and sometimes people will comment "this video was awesome". That's nice. But other times people will say "this video sucks". It's like...how does this help me please you? It doesn't help you get better content and it doesn't help me make content you'd prefer to watch. They have to provide examples and sources to the dev team. I believe the reason the FW190 got fixed was because so many community members were dedicated to finding real, credible sources that demonstrated the dev team was wrong. 

 

11 minutes ago, Inkompetent said:

Of course it must be tiring to not have the resources to work on all the things that people would like to see improved, and if anything having to be very selective with where the development work goes, but if anything it is the sim community's desire to seek absolute realism - even if presented in a simplified form, like for example the plane interaction in IL-2 - that is its driving force. A large part (most? all?) of the sim community are where they are because they want to immerse themselves in something authentic.

 

I will also not disagree that a healthy degree of voting with your wallet is necessary. If 777 studios decided to become WarThunder, well people would just go play WarThunder. 

 

11 minutes ago, Inkompetent said:

I'm having issues on all servers currently, and in singleplayer. I like what the 3.008 damage model strives to achieve, but when I for example have to pelt a AI-controlled Yak-1 with 20+ rounds with my MG 151/20 for them to finally go down, then something is awry. I can't say what is wrong because I'm not sitting with the code or even decent debug feedback, but I can tell that when that isn't a unique thing but happens in almost every fight, then it doesn't match any factual analysis of WW2 air combat that I've ever come across/had presented to me.

 

Jason says he and the team know what requires fixing so I'm going to assume if those kinds of things happen, they may already be working on a fix. If not, I'd suggest posting the video to forums. 

I'm not criticising people for criticizing the team's work, I'm more suggesting that many people complain unconstructively, and considering 777 is owned by Jason, I imagine he is not beholden to shareholders and has no actual obligation to sit and listen. I have seen other games where the community complains so much all the time the development team literally just stopped caring. MechWarrior Online being a good example. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GridiroN said:

 

You are right to some degree, sure. There's a larger pot of people who simply feel the sim is imperfect (and I do think it's important to think of this as a sim and not a GAME; game implies balance)

 

 

This is part of the problem . we have the pure simmers vs gamers playing IL-2 GB.

 

I see it as a game 1st sim second. To quote my post on another topic about DM.

On 12/26/2018 at 10:21 PM, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

I've always seen it as a game 1st sim 2nd, If it was a pure sim it would be quite a lot different. That's the problem I think, some people think its a sim 1st game 2nd ,it isn't.

They devs try to make it as realistic as possible, but to make it fun COMBAT simulator  it needs to be a game 1st, which it is.

 

Don't get me wrong its got many sim characteristics, much is quite well simulated, but a lot of stuff is not realistic in this game. If it was as unbalanced as you seem to think , a lot less people would play it. I'm not saying its fully balanced , it isn't, mainly it comes down to player number and the experience of players and the quality of the team work that determine balance , not so much the planes we have.

 

 

And partly that's also up to the mission designers

 

Share this post


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

Well no you are just not man enough to admit when you are wrong.

 

I actually have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I don't bow down to people who demand that I admit I am wrong when I'm not, which is what you're asking me to do.

 

11 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

Repeating myself yet again for the 4th time for those that have trouble with basic english skills but with subtitles this time.

My original post was about the margin of error. My point is that the gap between the two reports is too large to be simply explained away as being a margin of error. The german report states that it takes an average of 4 hits to take down a B17 which other sourves have expressed as a 25% probability. The US report states that there is a 6 or 10% probability that a single 30 mm hit can result in a "A" kill on a B25 which you could also express as that it takes an average of 10 to 17 x 30 mm hits to take down a B25. Now of course that is never a straight correlation which is why I added the qualifier that it may take as much as 10 to 17 x 30 mm hits to take out a B25 to make it clear that the actual number could be lower. 

Again my point was not that it took an average of up to 17 x 30 mm HE hits to shoot down a B25, although you could make that claim based on the US report, but that the gap between the conclusions between the US report and the German report is too wide to be simply explained away as being a normal margin of error. The only way to reconcile the two is to actually see the German report. 

Now is it clear enough even for you to understand?

 

Let me try to help you this one last time;

 

An average of 4 hits to down a bomber is NOT the same as one hit having a 25% probability of doing so, believing this is where you took the first wrong turn. The first reason for this is that 1 hit kill probabilities do NOT take into account the cumulative effect of successive hits - i.e. successive hits in close proximity with each other exponentially increases the likelihood of part failure over an even spread of fire. In other words an average to shoot down an aircraft is not a simple game of addition where you just stack the 1 hit kill probabilities on top of each other until you reach 100%, which is what you're clearly doing. Secondly 100% is a guarantee stamp, not an average. 

 

Next big problem is that you keep focusing on "A" kill criteria for the 1 hit kill probabilities, when instead you should be looking at the "B" kill criteria which is that the aircraft is not coming home. And like I said here the percentages are 11.7-16.1% that a single hit causes damage which will prevent the bomber from ever making it back home. The US study later used this figure to arrive at a 9 hit average to cause a "B" kill against the B-25, the problem is this is without considering active targeting of certain parts, the cumulative effect of successive hits and crucially the effect of every 3rd - 2nd round being an incendiary. A 4th problem is that the compound effect of high energy airflow catching an ripping off parts exposed due to blast damage could have been underappreciated.

 

11 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

..just like it is useless trying to argue with someone who does not understand simple logic...

 

The prerequisite for this is that you demonstrate that you're capable of applying said simple logic first.

 

11 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

And how would you know that? Do you have a link to the actual report? And no, it is not the one JTD linked to.

 

Because I located & posted it myself for everyone to see on this forum.

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Panthera, seriously, stand down already. You're just going on and on and on at this point to no good end.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LukeFF said:

@Panthera, seriously, stand down already. You're just going on and on and on at this point to no good end.

 

No, I'm being courteous and replying to posts.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Different conclusion from what exactly? That we admit it could be better?? WHEN DID I EVER SAY WE WERE COMPLETELY HAPPY WITH OUR DM IN ALL RESPECTS??? Huh? WHEN? SHOW ME RIGHT NOW! Come on show me since you are such an expert on everything we say and do. 

 

Jason

 

You start a poll called „which DM do you like better“, but then you seem to get angry at people who discuss their view and issues of the DM in that exact same thread.

Most or the people here agree that the DM is the best on the market but voicing criticism on a thread that you guys, the devs, started seems a bit weird to me.

 

Someone said that discussions here are like people posting „your video sucks“ in his yt channel.

 

I think it is far from it. People here discuss very particular discrepancies between their perceived historical reality to what is portrayed in the sim.

 

Look at the work that has gone into Ivy‘s or unreasonable‘s testing.

You don’t have to agree with either one but it is clear that some go to great lengths to compare perceived reality to the sim.

 

I can understand that as a developer you see all this as a way of „some people whining“, and I guess everyone is very sensitive when it is about their own work that is being talked about.

 

Trying to get their opinion across to the devs may be partly a motive of posting, but I don’t think that’s the whole picture. It is also about having something like a peer review on our perception of the sim. Hell I have learned a lot about History in this forum.

 

So I really would not take all of this discussion personal or view it as solely wanting to criticize Il2. As JtD put it, he posts here because his mtb community just doesn’t care that much about AoA, and I think many others are also just people with an interest in simming having a chat.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

I actually have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I don't bow down to people who demand that I admit I am wrong when I'm not, which is what you're asking me to do.

 

 

Let me try to help you this one last time;

 

An average of 4 hits to down a bomber is NOT the same as one hit having a 25% probability of doing so, believing this is where you took the first wrong turn. The first reason for this is that 1 hit kill probabilities do NOT take into account the cumulative effect of successive hits - i.e. successive hits in close proximity with each other exponentially increases the likelihood of part failure over an even spread of fire. In other words an average to shoot down an aircraft is not a simple game of addition where you just stack the 1 hit kill probabilities on top of each other until you reach 100%, which is what you're clearly doing. Secondly 100% is a guarantee stamp, not an average. 

 

Next big problem is that you keep focusing on "A" kill criteria for the 1 hit kill probabilities, when instead you should be looking at the "B" kill criteria which is that the aircraft is not coming home. And like I said here the percentages are 11.7-16.1% that a single hit causes damage which will prevent the bomber from ever making it back home. The US study later used this figure to arrive at a 9 hit average to cause a "B" kill against the B-25, the problem is this is without considering active targeting of certain parts, the cumulative effect of successive hits and crucially the effect of every 3rd - 2nd round being an incendiary. A 4th problem is that the compound effect of high energy airflow catching an ripping off parts exposed due to blast damage could have been underappreciated.

 

 

The prerequisite for this is that you demonstrate that you're capable of applying said simple logic first.

 

 

Because I located & posted it myself for everyone to see on this forum.

 

You are such a child.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finaly tricked my tm8 to buy BoK so we can se how effective P-39 37mm is and i was suprised to see that i could fly my 109 when he hit me with 4xAP from 37mm cannon only and only was shoot down when he got my pilot, no visable damage to airplane when hit by them. Then with HE it took 2-3 bullets to get 109 by damaging the engine, and 4 to brake its parts, 23HE is more effective then P-39 37mm HE after the DM update, i think thats the most effected gun by DM change in negative way i hope they fix that in future, P-39 is now airplane for masochists lol  Atleast he likes Yak-7b so its not all lost by buying BoK.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not look at a thread for 24 hours thinking it had run it's course..... :)


I pretty much agree with  @=EXPEND=SchwarzeDreizehn's post (for once ;) ) - a lot of this is typical A types trying to come to grips with a tricky subject from different viewpoints and areas of expertise: it is perhaps unfortunate that it has all gone on in a developer's poll thread.  So I do see why Jason might have got testy: probably still jet lagged from his UK trip as well? 

 

I am happy that Jason has seen my P-47 vs 37mm thread, and do not expect comment. I make no recommendations, simply present my finding for consideration.  The difficulty he has is that while there are tests showing little lethality from certain weapon/target hits, my P-47/37mm test appears to show far too much lethality.  If you accept the results of both kinds of tests as being accurate recordings of what happens in the game, then it is clear that tweaking the DM to fit is not just a matter of dialing certain variables up or down across the board. 

 

Some of the criticisms of the DM in this and other threads are made in a way that seem intemperate to me. As far as I am concerned everything is WIP, all we have to do is present what we have from game testing (done offline as instructed) or from historical or engineering sources, and let the team get on with it without being badgered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear, the toothless tiger  - 🤣 - 88 mm tiger gun 88x 571R mm cartridge loaded fails against the heavy armored Polikarpow Po-2 at close range! - Watch it 1:06 - 1:30

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Livai said:

Oh dear, the toothless tiger  - 🤣 - 88 mm tiger gun 88x 571R mm cartridge loaded fails against the heavy armored Polikarpow Po-2 at close range! - Watch it 1:06 - 1:30

 

Bringing in tanks in this discussion makes no sense. They aren't a finished product yet and i am sure they will do a lot of adjustments in the near future. I am sure they are aware of the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another MP test, this time with WIP early access content involved only.

How clever.

I have to second what Jason said, read before post really helps a lot.

 

:drinks:

Mike 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is definitely nothing wrong with constructive criticism but an awful lot of what we are currently seeing in certain sections of the forum amounts to just "poking the bear" or trying to get a rise.

The devs are continuing to improve  all aspects of the "Great Battles" series. Looking at where this product is now compared to how it was say 3 years ago is a phenomenal achievement.  The team consistently under promises and over delivers. In the current gaming/sim climate, this is one of the few development teams that seem to genuinely care about their product (and player base) and want to make it the best WWII air combat sim out there. In my humble view they already have. There is of course always room for improvement, but I'm more than confident that the devs and all involved in the project will continue to strive for excellence.      

 

 

Edit: Thanks to the development team and Jason for your continuing efforts. Looking forward seeing how Great Battles develops in 2019 (If you guys ever get the chance to have a beer with Jason go for it, he genuinely is a really nice guy)  there is a downside though, He doesn't like warm beer ;)

  

Edited by 6./ZG26_Custard
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

There is definitely nothing wrong with constructive criticism but an awful lot of what we are currently seeing in certain sections of the forum amounts to just "poking the bear" or trying to get a rise.

The devs are continuing to improve  all aspects of the "Great Battles" series. Looking at where this product is now compared to how it was say 3 years ago is a phenomenal achievement.  The team consistently under promises and over delivers. In the current gaming/sim climate, this is one of the few development teams that seem to genuinely care about their product (and player base) and want to make it the best WWII air combat sim out there. In my humble view they already have. There is of course always room for improvement, but I'm more than confident that the devs and all involved in the will continue to strive for excellence.      

 

Well said!

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

There is definitely nothing wrong with constructive criticism but an awful lot of what we are currently seeing in certain sections of the forum amounts to just "poking the bear" or trying to get a rise.

The devs are continuing to improve  all aspects of the "Great Battles" series. Looking at where this product is now compared to how it was say 3 years ago is a phenomenal achievement.  The team consistently under promises and over delivers. In the current gaming/sim climate, this is one of the few development teams that seem to genuinely care about their product (and player base) and want to make it the best WWII air combat sim out there. In my humble view they already have. There is of course always room for improvement, but I'm more than confident that the devs and all involved in the project will continue to strive for excellence.      

 

 

Indeed they do. And it's a difficult balancing act they have to manage between allowing discussion and blocking discussions derailing into rabble rowsing. Have too much rabble rowsing and (often illinformed) complaint threads and you might scare new customers who take a look at the forum for the first time and go "Woah, dumpster fire". The last thing we want is hurting the bottom line of the game that way. In the long run, that hurts us way more than an "inaccurate" model somewhere. The model will eventually be improved (as they've demonstrated numerous times) but you can't be sure that the lost customer will do a turn around.

 

Things we could do better would be linking upcoming issue threads to the proper responses the devs already have given on the topic (would be cool if such reference links could get moved to the first reply by the mods or something so they're immediately at hand) and remind people that improvements are often much more complicated to get right than the issue suggests.

 

-> As is the case with the topic at hand.

Edited by Mauf
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...