Ignoring a problem will not solve it

[Creep]

To the forum moderators, community managers, producers, etc:

For months on end, many of us have been coming to the official forums to voice concerns with one important aspect of this combat sim (AP v HE modeling, particularly with HMGs in late-war allied planes). We want this sim to be the best it can be just like you do, which is why we have spent a considerable amount of time doing testing, conducting research, and organizing the information in an attempt to collaborate with the developers.

 

Today, the thread that @QB.Shallot and I started was locked after having multiple loosely-related threads merged with it: 

 

 

Merging threads in an attempt to derail a respectful and scientific approach to an obvious problem isn’t helping. Neither is stymying discussion by locking the thread. Until today, I thought that the biggest problem was this unrealistic portrayal of how the weapon systems on late war Allied planes performed. Now I believe it is this company’s refusal to listen to feedback from it's community.

[poy]

I would like to add that, despite how it looks, Creep and Shallot are not in fact stirring the pot. The pot has been and is stirring on its own. Some communities had to create a dedicated channel just to feed the endless debate and general feel of betrayal that comes from this issue which we feel is being very intentionally ignored despite it affecting a large part of your player base.

 

The QB boys you keep seeing posting well researched constructive criticism (and not just whiny complaints) are just the tip of a very large and very concerned iceberg buzzzing below your notice.

 

All we ask is that you acknowledge this issue and work with us to solve it.

 

We're thankful for the sim. But we wish every plane and their armament would be as competitive as their historical values indicated.

 

 

Thank you.

 

[Jade_Monkey]

Seems like they are aware of it. I would also like the .50 cals reviewed but we need to understand there are many factors that go into their workflow.

 

You can't expect them to drop everything to work on the feature YOU want added/changed. 

 

They have a development plan, a schedule, producers and deadlines. 

 

The dev team has more than demonstrated they go above and beyond and listen to the community. I have no doubt they will come back to the modeling of HMG at some point when its feasible.

[poy]

I don't think we're asking them to drop everything and get on fixing the issue. An acknowledgement and maybe an ETA would go a long way to soothe a whole lot of ruffled feathers.

 

I am still looking forward to a Damage Model Developer Diary of the quality and care that "Petrovich" shared with us about the pilot phisiology.

 

I do consider a DM correction one of the priority although as you said I know nothing of their schedule or plans. And that itself is an other issue entirely.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I didn't read the whole thread but the post by QB.Shallot is exactly the kind of thing that we need to see when it comes to the community discussing issues. There's testing, there's numbers, and there's methodology. That's definitely the kind of nuanced discussion we need.

 

I've generally been on the side of the .50cal's are fine but they need API bullets to achieve more realistic effects side of the debate. I'll admit that this data has me wavering a bit from that perspective.

[CountZero]

I think this is big problem in game and the way that 4.005 was tested was realy poor job ( leving bad tail fix for 109s and poor 0.50s) , but from what they replayed here and on facebook its clear they will take onother look at it when they finish airplanes, and to me that means in year time at best, so more post about it aint gona do a thing exept get some comical relife. 

[Yogiflight]

I would think this issue should be quite high in the Devs priority list. The reason for going to the west was to bring in, especially more American players. Doesn't seem to be a good plan giving them aircrafts with weapons which are underperforming. And this is said by someone, who is flying on the other side of the guns.

[Denum]

While I understand that they are quite busy with a bunch on their plate, the flat out refusal to even discuss anything has me wondering if my pre-order of Normandy was wise. 

 

I'm in the .50 is broken camp. But I don't think there would be a fix for a while due to current project load.

 

This isn't a case of people being fan boys or demanding laser death beams either. 

 

Fortunately I really like the Mossie and Spitfire, but they both have machine guns also that are going to be dreadfully under powered. ?

[LLv24_Zami]

It`s easy to see why the thread was locked when I looked the last page.

 

But it`s great to see that there`s so many perfect programmers, fighter pilots and weapon experts in the community. I look forward to buy the sim you create, it`s clear that it will be perfect for everyone.

[TheAngryGamer_VR]

This is the typical response I usually see to a well thought out, respectful argument. It is also the reason so many people are bitter about the subject. Nobody expects a instant fix. They just expect it to be admitted that there is an issue and a future plan to fix it. Seems reasonable to me. What doesn't seem reasonable is to expect people to pay for the expansion pack that includes the American planes they have always loved just to find out the planes have no teeth and then be happy about their purchase.

[LLv24_Zami]

13 minutes ago, 336thTheAngryGamer said:

This is the typical response I usually see to a well thought out, respectful argument. It is also the reason so many people are bitter about the subject. Nobody expects a instant fix. They just expect it to be admitted that there is an issue and a future plan to fix it. Seems reasonable to me. What doesn't seem reasonable is to expect people to pay for the expansion pack that includes the American planes they have always loved just to find out the planes have no teeth and then be happy about their purchase.

Just took it to the level that you guys used in the last page trashing the devs and testers. You don`t know what I think about this issue because I haven`t told you. 

 

And I see the answer from the devs in the last page of that thread. When the time and resources are available they will take a look at it. Nothing unclear to me.

Edited February 20, 2021 by LLv24_Zami

[Jason_Williams]

We’re not ignoring anything, I’ve already stated this is not possible to work on this issue at the moment and people take my words out of context. You’re just going to have to have patience. Trying to force the issue isn’t going to speed up our current schedule. You’re not going to get the answer you want right now and I’ve said that repeatedly here and on FB. And making public posts trying to shame us into action is not ‘collaborating’ with the developers. Myself and the team collaborate with many and you are not one regardless of your intention to force us to do so.

 

When I have news on this topic I will post it. I’ve seen your reports and until we have time to study it further I and the team have no comments. We are working on some new stuff that may affect the damage models so even if I agreed with your findings it would be premature to promise anything. You guys always jump to the worst conclusion even after 6-7 years of constant improvements to our sim. Gets tiresome. 

 

Jason

[Denum]

6 minutes ago, Jason_Williams said:

We are working on some new stuff that may affect the damage models so even if I agreed with your findings it would be premature to promise anything. You guys always jump to the worst conclusion even after 6-7 years of constant improvements to our sim. Gets tiresome. 

 

Jason

 

We have speculated the fuel system changes would potentially help with the DM issues. More things to burn in some ways. There was a a pretty fair understanding across the board that any DM changes prior to its release would essentially cause more rework after. 

 

One concern that was raised is the potential for the cannon aircraft to become even stronger then they already are. But thats in the wait and see pile. 

 

 

Well all love the series and the product. Sometimes the die hard fans are the worst ones to deal with. 

 

Anyway, 

 

I can leave this alone until the fuel changes come. Just my assumption. Milage may vary. 

 

 

[Jason_Williams]

19 minutes ago, 336thTheAngryGamer said:

This is the typical response I usually see to a well thought out, respectful argument. It is also the reason so many people are bitter about the subject. Nobody expects a instant fix. They just expect it to be admitted that there is an issue and a future plan to fix it. Seems reasonable to me. What doesn't seem reasonable is to expect people to pay for the expansion pack that includes the American planes they have always loved just to find out the planes have no teeth and then be happy about their purchase.

We don’t admit to any issue until we have time to study it. This is where people are losing their mind over this. They want me to say there is a problem with 50s. Not all agree with this. I don’t know the answer. We don’t have time to study it right now because I have other work that needs to be finished and is two years late. Some can’t seem to understand this and want to cause a stink just to cause a stink.

 

Jason 

[TheAngryGamer_VR]

EVERYBODY is on one side or the other on this debate it seems. But it HAS been said it will be investigated. No, they haven't said there is an issue, no they haven't said they will fix it. But they did say they will look into it. So my suggestion is to let them and just see where it goes. I myself have missed many of the posts in the other threads and missed some of the replies and was frustrated at what appeared to be a complete lack of concern on the devs part about it. That's my bad. so for now, lets just practice patients and let them do their jobs. I am only posting this so others can see this and hopefully get back to the part of this that's supposed to be fun instead of arguing back and forth.  

[LLv24_Zami]

Reasonable post.

 

Personally I am at the side of getting the DM as realistic as possible within the limits of the technology we have.

 

Is it perfect in every aspect, including the .50 cals imo? No, but it will evolve as every other thing in the sim. Bit by bit.

 

Will we ever see absolutely perfect imitation of the real WW2 air combat on our computers? No, I don`t think it`s possible.

 

Is it possible to make sim that pleases everybodys expectations of WW2 air combat based on their own research on the subject? No, absolutely not. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by LLv24_Zami

[CountZero]

As lng there is no shortige of Tempests and incoming Spitfire XIV on online missions to replace american stuff there should not be problem

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Not everyone is on one side or the other. That is a patently false dichotomy. The "you are either with us or against us," mentality is a wholly destructive thought process.

 

The majority of the people seem to be in neither "camp" and believe the DM is decent to good with room for improvement. I'd even venture to place the Dev's in that "camp." The pure vitriol of those who think the DM is fataly flawed is, at times, outrageous. The accusations and conspiracy theories against Dev's who work their a##es off to bring you the best product they can is exactly what got threads locked.

 

Jason has given succinct replies twice in the last two days across two forum threads. This thread is, in fact, needlessly stirring the pot and willful duplication of threads after getting said replies from Jason, directly. It is a clear violation of forum rule 9 and flirting with others.

 

9. Willful duplication of topics and excessive branching of topics is prohibited (i.e. placement of similar meaning posts and content). Before starting a new topic in a section, please use the search function to find similar posts. This will help make sure the subject you are interested in is easy to find by others. Topics that needlessly duplicate other discussions may be closed without notice and subsequently removed.
Violations of this rule will result in the following:
 
First offense - 1 days ban on entry
Second offense - 3 days of the ban on entry
Third offense - 7 day ban on entry

 

 

Your concerns regarding the DM have been acknowledged. They will not be addressed on your schedule but rather the Dev's. Enough with the outrageous and childish behavior. It's time to chill........

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by II/JG17_HerrMurf
Clarity

[[DBS]Browning]

A damage model that everyone is happy with is impossible.

There hasn't been a combat sim I know of where there have not been vicious complaints about the way various weapons are represented.

 

Personally, I'm sure there is room for improvement; there always is, however I find the current situation plausible and that might be as good as anyone can ask for.

The Devs have an excellent track record for improving on such things, and it would be strange to assume that will not continue as long as development in general continues.

It appears to me that at least as much development time is put into improving old parts of the game as is put into new releases for the game.

 

Those who have particular pet issues will always shout the loudest, whilst those who are happy tend to remain quiet.

This is unfortunate for any people viewing the forum who have not yet bought the game. I'm sure it must be draining for the Devs also.

Feedback on the game should always be done with a mind to help the development team and never to badger or harry them into making changes one sees fit to be made or to try and set the development schedule to ones own priorities.

Edited February 20, 2021 by [DBS]Browning

[LLv24_Zami]

9 minutes ago, CountZero said:

As lng there is no shortige of Tempests and incoming Spitfire XIV on online missions to replace american stuff there should not be problem

That`s exactly the constructive attitude which I`m sure will get things flowing, thanks ?

[RedKestrel]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

A damage model that everyone is happy with is impossible.

There hasn't been a combat sim I know of where there have not been vicious complaints about the way various weapons are represented.

 

Personally, I'm sure there is room for improvement; there always is, however I find the current situation plausible and that might be as good as anyone can ask for.

The Devs have an excellent track record for improving on such things, and it would be strange to assume that will not continue as long as development in general continues.

It appears to me that at least as much development time is put into improving old parts of the game as is put into new releases for the game.

 

Those who have particular pet issues will always shout the loudest, whilst those who are happy tend to remain quiet.

This is unfortunate for any people viewing the forum who have not yet bought the game. I'm sure it must be draining for the Devs also.

Feedback on the game should always be done with a mind to help the development team and never to badger or harry them into making changes one sees fit to be made or to try and set the development schedule to ones own priorities.

Unfortunately, the threads that are constructive tend to get overwhelmed with non-constructive people, the thread gets locked or moved to complaints, and legitimate concerns get buried beneath hyperbole and slapfights between age-old nemeses. Then a new thread is made the cycle repeats. 

[[DBS]Browning]

Just now, RedKestrel said:

Unfortunately, the threads that are constructive tend to get overwhelmed with non-constructive people

 

That's true. There is also a tendency for people to see anyone who doesn't agree with them as being unconstructive, which is not conducive to good debate.

[Dakpilot]

3 hours ago, RedKestrel said:

Unfortunately, the threads that are constructive tend to get overwhelmed with non-constructive people, the thread gets locked or moved to complaints, and legitimate concerns get buried beneath hyperbole and slapfights between age-old nemeses. Then a new thread is made the cycle repeats. 

 

Which is why a proper report(s) should have been put in the FM/Damage/Armaments bug section months ago 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Dakpilot