56 replies to this topic

[justcallme A S H]

Palor, on 19 February 2017 - 10:49 AM, said:

I would of guessed MWO's active population around 20k, 60k is much better than what i figured.

In most communities the vocal minority get noticed and catered too, that is common.

Remove anyone that has played less than 25 games.

As anyone 25 or less is basically inactive and/or an alt account.

That then gives a far more accurate picture, and that is far less than 60k... far far less.

[Anjian]

Mystere, on 19 February 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

60,000 is called "an OK day" in War Thunder.

I logged on to War Thunder yesterday and saw over 65,000 in the counter.

I certainly hope MWO is way more than just a player base of 60,000. I would consider these numbers to be way way too low to be sustainable.

At least I know its in a much better state than Armored Warfare where its difficult to find a pvp game.

Edited by Anjian, 22 February 2017 - 08:05 AM.

[LordNothing]

Stone Wall, on 20 February 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Keep in mind this game is free too. It seems games that you pay for up front keeps players for longer.

yea, because they dont rely on all the psychological bs to keep players addicted. that said never again will i play another f2p title ever again after mwo dies.

[C E Dwyer]

tokumboh, on 19 February 2017 - 10:44 AM, said:

I was watching a Kanajashi's video on the PTS and it got me thinking how many of us actually play the game? So I went through the overall leaderboad and got to the end for this season at i is 60204.

Really..I just went through the leader board in the last couple of minutes and found only 30520.

last registered players name starts with D played 10 games and has an average match score of 10

[tokumboh]

Cathy, on 22 February 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Really..I just went through the leader board in the last couple of minutes and found only 30520.

last registered players name starts with D played 10 games and has an average match score of 10

Yes, I made a mistake and used season 3 rather than season 8. I corrected myself further down in the topic I was looking at an earlier season that allowed you to be in the leaderboard with one game. Looking at those that played 10 games in that season and you are at around 38k.

[TercieI]

The game is popular in Evanston IL?

[Dino Might]

Mystere, on 20 February 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

Realistic and arcade modes in WT are two different things. As such, did you actually mean something else?

In any case, I am finding it much more fun than MWO right now.

Nope. Realistic is not really realistic. Unless I'm misremembering, there are 3 modes: arcade, realistic, simulation. In "realistic" you can still fly keyboard and mouse, which is an atrocity, because that control setup outperforms a HOTAS quite easily, every time. You have a simplified flight/systems model that only accounts for little more than engine temp.

Honestly, I would have fun with it if HOTAS was at all useful, which is why simulation would be my go-to. The only problem with that is no available matches at low tiers.

I'm definitely being a bit of a snob here, but DCS takes flight sims to a whole new level compared to WT. Mostly, I enjoy the challenge of flying a more realistic flight model coupled with the lack of automated assists. I get a sense of satisfaction out of things like a successful take-off and landing, because there is so much more to it in a true simulator. I think WT simulation mode is decent enough, but still would prefer DCS to it, given the higher fidelity and more players online for various missions.

If I could get matches in simulation mode, I would play WT.

Edited by Dino Might, 22 February 2017 - 02:27 PM.

[Mystere]

Dino Might, on 22 February 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

Nope. Realistic is not really realistic. Unless I'm misremembering, there are 3 modes: arcade, realistic, simulation. In "realistic" you can still fly keyboard and mouse, which is an atrocity, because that control setup outperforms a HOTAS quite easily, every time. You have a simplified flight/systems model that only accounts for little more than engine temp.

Ah! I see.

Realistic mode actually also takes into account other things like stalls and spins, among others. I've managed to turn FW-190s into tops and sheared off wings from P-38s. I've also pancaked a few during takeoff.

And no, keyboard and mouse would make the above even worse.

Dino Might, on 22 February 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

Honestly, I would have fun with it if HOTAS was at all useful, which is why simulation would be my go-to. The only problem with that is no available matches at low tiers.

I'm definitely being a bit of a snob here, but DCS takes flight sims to a whole new level compared to WT. Mostly, I enjoy the challenge of flying a more realistic flight model coupled with the lack of automated assists. I get a sense of satisfaction out of things like a successful take-off and landing, because there is so much more to it in a true simulator. I think WT simulation mode is decent enough, but still would prefer DCS to it, given the higher fidelity and more players online for various missions.

If I could get matches in simulation mode, I would play WT.

Yep. The simulation mode for low tiers is indeed population-starved. I think I've managed only 1 so far.

[Dino Might]

Here are a couple of videos giving an idea of what you can get with DCS. The modules are all pay to play, except the TF-51 and Su-25T. It's the most accessible study sim on the market with the best multiplayer environment.

https://www.youtube....1&v=EmdDYypeLiw
Cool cinematic made from in-game footage using the replay feature.



Intro to the Spitfire - tutorial showcasing how to actually fly the module.

[Stone Wall]

LordNothing, on 22 February 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

yea, because they dont rely on all the psychological bs to keep players addicted. that said never again will i play another f2p title ever again after mwo dies.

After this game and StarCitizen, I'm there with you.

[DAYLEET]

Dino Might, on 22 February 2017 - 02:23 PM, said:

I'm definitely being a bit of a snob here, but DCS takes flight sims to a whole new level compared to WT. Mostly, I enjoy the challenge of flying a more realistic flight model coupled with the lack of automated assists. I get a sense of satisfaction out of things like a successful take-off and landing, because there is so much more to it in a true simulator. I think WT simulation mode is decent enough, but still would prefer DCS to it, given the higher fidelity and more players online for various missions.

If I could get matches in simulation mode, I would play WT.

That "new level" of realism come with a price. A price of sheer will. DCS is a flight sim, a study like you said in your second post. You learn you plane cockpit and how to use the system, learn physics too if you are willing to know why what happens like that and how to avoid it and you learn the limits to keep your aircraft in the air or you quit. That price isnt to be dismissed. If you fly helicopters you might be masochistic too because they are so much more complicated. Theres just that much to learn to be good. It's that good of a flight simulator.

But its not a combat sim and beside learning, there's not much things to do. It's a warplane flight simulator. There's only a few basic mission in a quick play style.

When it comes to the business model i can see a strong parallel with how DCS and how MWO manage things. I doubt DCS will ever be anything but a PlanePack with limited things to do with it just like MWO is nothing but a MeckPack selling platform for the collectors. You look at other games like IL or BMS and you can't help to be jealous even though DCS is one of the best thing to come to warplane enthusiaste.

The more i learn about Eagle Dynamics(been following them since F-14 announcement), the less interested i am to get monetarily invested. Their anti Steam politic is complete bullsh!t too and does not help me spend cash.

That said. I need to kick my *** and print Chuck's Viggen abridge manual and learn more than to take off and land. Not now though, still in mwo lol.

[JediPanther]

All that matters is we got enough playing to have a few matches in solo. FW be damed with its meta-warriors.

[Dino Might]

DAYLEET, on 22 February 2017 - 03:37 PM, said:

That "new level" of realism come with a price. A price of sheer will. DCS is a flight sim, a study like you said in your second post. You learn you plane cockpit and how to use the system, learn physics too if you are willing to know why what happens like that and how to avoid it and you learn the limits to keep your aircraft in the air or you quit. That price isnt to be dismissed. If you fly helicopters you might be masochistic too because they are so much more complicated. Theres just that much to learn to be good. It's that good of a flight simulator.

But its not a combat sim and beside learning, there's not much things to do. It's a warplane flight simulator. There's only a few basic mission in a quick play style.

When it comes to the business model i can see a strong parallel with how DCS and how MWO manage things. I doubt DCS will ever be anything but a PlanePack with limited things to do with it just like MWO is nothing but a MeckPack selling platform for the collectors. You look at other games like IL or BMS and you can't help to be jealous even though DCS is one of the best thing to come to warplane enthusiaste.

The more i learn about Eagle Dynamics(been following them since F-14 announcement), the less interested i am to get monetarily invested. Their anti Steam politic is complete bullsh!t too and does not help me spend cash.

That said. I need to kick my *** and print Chuck's Viggen abridge manual and learn more than to take off and land. Not now though, still in mwo lol.

Don't disagree with your points here - I'm an addict and own everything but the C101. Have you tried the Buddy Spike Blue Flag server? Best multiplayer experience in the game, in my opinion. They've created a pretty amazing dynamic PvP campaign, which is actually exactly how MWO FP should be run. It is THE model for fun dynamic large scale PvP ops.

Single player relies a lot on finding interesting user-created missions. As more gets added, the capabilities of the mission designers keeps improving. That being said, it still doesn't have enough tools to create a great single player experience for persistent combat sorties.

[DAYLEET]

Dino Might, on 22 February 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

Don't disagree with your points here - I'm an addict and own everything but the C101. Have you tried the Buddy Spike Blue Flag server? Best multiplayer experience in the game, in my opinion.

Im more interested in single player stories, fictitious and anchored in reality or actual history, especially about the cold war era. Reliving history or creating it.

The Caucasus is just one map, the next map will be paid dlc and split the community. Nevada is very cool for a RedFlag story and very boring for anything else. They take years to make a map because the trees must be realistic placed, nobody cares, extrapolate something from googlemap and people will be happy.

Dino Might, on 22 February 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

They've created a pretty amazing dynamic PvP campaign, which is actually exactly how MWO FP should be run. It is THE model for fun dynamic large scale PvP ops.

Im not learned into the intricacies of DCS dynamic server but ive no doubt they would kill quickplay/cw. Any big map with bases like ps2 would also kill quickplay and cw but it's never gona happen. One thing ive learned from mwo is never expect anything better that you dont already have in a f2p game beside paid content. So ill be watching dcs without any hope or expectation. They are already great at hyping stuff that never happens. If i can just take my head out of my *** and start flying again, i have a hard time playing many games at the same time.

Edited by DAYLEET, 22 February 2017 - 09:18 PM.