Wibox

The Length of Arcade Battles: Opinions of the Community

Length of Arcade Battles  

833 members have voted

  1. 1. Arcade Battles: Too long or too short?

    • Far too long. Should be considerably shorter.
      13
    • Too long. Should be shorter.
      14
    • I like it. Should stay how it is.
      155
    • Too short. Should be longer.
      363
    • Far too short. Should be considerably longer.
      288
  2. 2. What is the optimal length for Arcade Battles?

    • More than 20 minutes
      157
    • 15 to 20 minutes
      395
    • 10 to 15 minutes
      232
    • 5 to 10 minutes
      39
    • Less than 5 minutes
      10


I'll speak about GF as it's the only thing I play and they are too short IMHO.

 

They are void of any incentive to fight too as you only need to keep safe at a cap point to win the match far too quickly while it all should be down to tank shooting tanks and only having a slight advantage given by cap points.

 

I'd really like to see matches won by exterminating the enemy than for capping small circles or bleeding tickets. Enemy spawn end should be the primary goal and way to end a match (and there is no way a lone tank can hide for too long or be unreachable as it can happen in planes fight. If you're the last lone tank you're already dead and very quickly.

 

Right now I doubt I ever seen a match where a team was out of spawns; that's why even 3 entries seems too much to me.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In air battles increase HP of mini bases, add more ground targets and end ticket bleed on airfield destruction.

The base and airfield health need to increase in line with the heavier ordnance dropped at higher tiers, that's why we get some games under two minutes right now.
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone saying the same for almoust a year:

Bomber rush destroying gameplay.

Everyone wish to play longer instead of wasting time waiting for new match after 4 minute bombrush game.

Everyone getting pissed off when making double rp match got zero rp due to bombers finished enemy base before he even climbed on operational celling.

Still gaijin have better ideas:

More b17 (japan) more bombers, new map without minibases, on with nobody even cares about ground targets (fleet)- its instant bomber race to airfields.

Wonder whos idea are this?

 

Besides- instant base destruction isn even good for bombers- this forcing very risky diving for targets before another bomber took them.

In result not even bombers getting decent rp, only one winner who killed airfield lands on top of the roster...

 

No fighters are willing to cover own bombers as well- because if bombers dies match will be longer so people can make decent kills , sl or rp.

So whats the point with this ...

Edited by Sadolf
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people agree that matches are far too short on the occasions that one side has a large number of bombers at high altitude which simply obliterate all bases / runways before serious opposition can be mounted. Sometimes a match ends before you feel you can contribute, or even get to altitude.

 

There must be many fixes for this, certsinly I think I could balance it better if I was coding it.

 

Even just starting bombers at a lower height, or fighters much higher up, would likely solve the issue. The only time I can't bring down a bomber is when it's simply to high too actually reach. Allowing more interceptions would mean more emphasis on protecting bomber formations, and once the bombers were out of it, then the ground attack planes and fighter-bombers would get a chance to play their part. Meanwhile, the fighters would be either defending their allies or scrambling to pick off the more spread out, but reachable, smaller planes.

 

Games would quickly be consistantly longer.

 

Low level games, where you have to strafe or only have 2-4 50kg bombs to deploy routinely last longer, giving everyone a chance to use all their planes and fly different roles.

 

Note: But hey, when a game plays out well, it's pretty amazing. Just give everyone a chance to make a difference.

Edited by *Brendan2097

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even though i also voted for longer lasting battles , 

if this happens exp gain also needs to be raised overall , cause playing for 10-20 minutes for the same reward that you get in a 5 min game is ..........

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is the Bomb Rush 

 

The problem isn't the Bomb-Rush, but 80-90% of all players who are only thinking of the number of kills (doing pew-pew-pew-only) then going after the (high number) (so everybody complains about) of Bombers.

9 out of 10 times i can stay the whole match in my bomber, with nobody around that tries to get me down.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people agree that matches are far too short on the occasions that one side has a large number of bombers at high altitude which simply obliterate all bases / runways before serious opposition can be mounted. Sometimes a match ends before you feel you can contribute, or even get to altitude.

 

There must be many fixes for this, certsinly I think I could balance it better if I was coding it.

 

Even just starting bombers at a lower height, or fighters much higher up, would likely solve the issue. The only time I can't bring down a bomber is when it's simply to high too actually reach. Allowing more interceptions would mean more emphasis on protecting bomber formations, and once the bombers were out of it, then the ground attack planes and fighter-bombers would get a chance to play their part. Meanwhile, the fighters would be either defending their allies or scrambling to pick off the more spread out, but reachable, smaller planes.

 

Games would quickly be consistantly longer.

 

Low level games, where you have to strafe or only have 2-4 50kg bombs to deploy routinely last longer, giving everyone a chance to use all their planes and fly different roles.

 

Note: But hey, when a game plays out well, it's pretty amazing. Just give everyone a chance to make a difference.

 

Like i said before....

Most players are only hunting after the kills, and don't care about the Bombers !

Nerfing the bombers won't help, believe me.

As long as nobody cares, the match will end within minutes by bombing your Bases.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Don't let the tickets bleed to 0 when an airfield is killed. The team won't be able to land & repair, but could still win, bombers don't "kill" the match in 3 minutes anymore, but can still earn EP.
  • Add spawning vehicle columns / Attack formations once the ground targets are almost depleted, they give ground attackers some targets and a reason to play. 

 

I fully agree on the ground forces ideas, but for air battles ...

 

1.Don't let the tickets bleed to 0 when an airfield is killed. The team won't be able to land & repair, but could still win, bombers don't "kill" the match in 3 minutes anymore, but can still earn EP.

 

  Most players do give sh*t about bombers, till it's too late end the game is ended by bombers that killed the bases too quickly.

  When you go hunt for the bombers more frequently, they will have less succes !

 

2.Add spawning vehicle columns / Attack formations once the ground targets are almost depleted, they give ground attackers some targets and a reason to play.

 

 And who is going after them ? Not the players who do pew-pew, and care only for the kill count.

 

Most players whould start to realise that letting the bombers go = losing the game.

But imo they never change, and will always complain about the short game and the kill-stealers only, while they could make the difference themself !

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo instead of making the duration longer, or nerf the bombers ...

Increase the rewards for killing the needed ground targets more...

Increase the reward of shooting down bombers more ...

Increase the reward for winning the game (match) more.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo instead of making the duration longer, or nerf the bombers ...
Increase the rewards for killing the needed ground targets more...
Increase the reward of shooting down bombers more ...
Increase the reward for winning the game (match) more.

As far as I see, you didn't get the point. You trying to say that chasing bombers will fix the problem... Unfortunately you're wrong. First of all Chasing them won't help at all, because before u will get their altitude, at least few of them will drop meaning that battle is going to end soon or it's over already but bombs are still going down.Secondly why I have to be forced to play that way if I'm not a skymuncher ? I would like to dog fight a bit instead of quickly grabbing some crazy kills before crap will go down. Telling everyone to chase elephants it's not a solution. There is a problem with bomb rush or zerging as we call it, and noone should even try to cover it with blaming dogfighters for doing what they do best. There are many solutions in this thread but is there anyone listening ? Over n' out. Edited by Ssijmisake
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even though i also voted for longer lasting battles , 

if this happens exp gain also needs to be raised overall , cause playing for 10-20 minutes for the same reward that you get in a 5 min game is ..........

 

RP/Lion gains will naturally be greater in a longer match, simply due to the fact that you'll be doing more things. Maybe even getting to use all those extra crew slots you bought...

 

As I've gone on the record before about this, I'll just reiterate. Make airfield kills not count towards the end of the match (other than draining some tickets) and you'll see games get longer. Maybe not enough, but it'll certainly help, and at the same time will deal in some way with the bomber spam.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like i said before....
Most players are only hunting after the kills, and don't care about the Bombers !
Nerfing the bombers won't help, believe me.
As long as nobody cares, the match will end within minutes by bombing your Bases.


- destroying bombers adds to your score, likely more points than hooting down a fighter, since bombers take more hits and are often higher level.

People will shoot down bombers- in fact it's its own kind of fun. The trouble is they are usually just too high to get to.

I just bought the A26c invader, literally my first bomber. Heard it was a treat to have, and you get GE and premium time with it... I can tell immediately the advantage you have starting so much higher. I could potentially play a game so high and fast that not even fancy new tiger cats can reach me. It is fun, but feels a little unfair since I usually fly fighters and know the frustration of seeing a bomber 3km higher than me I will never get to. Certainly not before it drops its bombs...

And wow- the Invader carries 4000lb of bombs which re-arm every 30seconds! 'MURICA! F yeah! Democracy away!!

You could single handedly win a game with that, so I suspect something isn't balanced. WT should be a team game, encouraging cooperative play and a comradely atmosphere.

I reckon there are a few tweaks which could solve the issue. It's not really there at lower tiers, so just drop the starting height of bombers or limit their payload/ increase re-arm times/ require landing to re-arm. That would shake things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Wibox for posting the poll. There have been others like it in the past including this one dating back from 1.31 when the game length first started to drop.

Hopefully this time the results are communicated to developers and some good comes out of it. All we're asking for is enjoyable gameplay, which is in Gaijin's best interest as well.

Gamers enjoying themselves = populated servers = paying customers.
Frustrated and bored gamers = people quitting the game = less paying customers.
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arcade matches should last on average 20 minutes in my opinion. It takes 2-3 minutes by itself to climb at the beginning. By current standards the games last 5-6 minutes, which leaves 2-3 minutes of action, which is way to short.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I feel this topic is useful, I also feel that it should not have been needed.  The length of the match is fairly insignificant if the game mode is designed properly.  What I mean by that is look at ground strike and racing matches at tier 4, for one a match length of 5 and half minutes is way too short but for the other is it is just fine because of the difference in their design.  Race works because the units used have working roles in the match, and ground strike doesn't work because not all of the planes have working roles.  This is a failure of the game designers to do their job properly.

 

So lets try to help them with that; the basic classes in a ground strike map are fighter, heavy fighter, attacker, light bomber, and heavy bomber, and each of these needs a role to fulfill and the time to carry that role out.  As of right now in tier 3 and 4, only fighters and heavy bombers have roles.  Bombers to kill bases and win the match before the other team, and fighters to kill enemy bombers and maybe to protect allied bombers, although if the later becomes a workable role the match is usually already decided and only needs to finish playing out.  Change the mode to have roles for the other 3 classes to carry out in order to help their team win, and a lot of the problems with time will go away.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...ground strike doesn't work because not all of the planes have working roles.  This is a failure of the game designers to do their job properly.
 
...Change the mode to have roles for the other 3 classes to carry out in order to help their team win, and a lot of the problems with time will go away.


To me the problem with Ground Strike is that too much has been shoehorned into it, to try and provide roles for all aircraft, and as a result its become rather messed-up and biased towards a particular class of aircraft.

Going back to 1.27, there were only pillboxes, tanks, ships and the airfield as targets in Ground Strike. No minibases. Every single ground target counted toward victory, and the game wasn't over until one of the following: all ground targets destroyed, the airfield bombed, one team lost its planes, or the 30:00 minute timer expired. That's it. No tickets, no script to remove ground targets after a certain time, just those simple objectives which were easily understood. You knew what you had to do to win, you knew what the enemy was going to try to do, and every plane type had a role ... except heavy bombers.

B17s back then were not often used for airfield bombing, not sure why but probably because they lacked the speed to climb high enough and there was insufficient reward from the tactic to make it worth doing in large numbers. So these planes were instead used as low altitude tactical bombers decimating tank columns from treetop height. It was pretty ridiculous. There was a period of airfield-rushing but it was by Yer-2s because of their speed, their payload (largest in the game at the time) and the fact that you could own six of them.

Fast forward to 1.29 and 1.31. The gremlins script was introduced which started to make ground targets go pop just before you were about to bomb them, to force an early and artificial end to the game. No longer did you have to push to kill those last tanks, you just had to get an early lead & then the script would take care of victory for you. Also tanks learned to dodge, and the bomb splash radius began to be nerfed.

Then 1.35 - minibases. Now heavy bombers had something to do & no longer needed to raid tank columns as these bases were plenty lucrative. And thus the seeds for base rushing were sown. Except that now the mode became seriously blurred. Was it about killing tanks or minibases? Could be either or both. So where did you go as a fighter? Up high to stop the bombers? Or low to stop the attackers? Because of this, it soon became obviously that fighter influence on match outcome was seriously diminished as there were just too many avenues of attack for the bombers.

Then 1.37, when base rushing started in earnest. Since then, the gameplay at high tier 3 up to low tier 5 has been, quite frankly, a disgrace. One type of plane dominated - if you wanted to win, join the spacebar mashing hordes in a B17. No other plane was worth flying. In the lower tiers it wasn't as much of a problem, though it could be if you let a H6K or two escape up into the stratosphere, but still the objectives remained blurred. Games ended with bases not quite destroyed and ground vehicles (now reduced in number from the old days) still running around, why? Because "tickets" had run down too far for one team or other. This is unsatisfactory - unless the airbase is lost you can never tell exactly when a game will end.

So we now have a mode that's unbalanced, that doesn't really give everyone (apart from heavy bombers) a clear-cut objective, and that marginalizes fighters. Its a mode that tries to do too much and delivers too little.

The game would be better served in my opinion by dividing it into two modes - Strategic Raid, where its all about pounding of bases, and Ground Strike where its as it used to be, based around close battlefield air support. Plenty of variety at various altitudes, a range of roles to play, and objectives once again clear cut. Yes there wouldn't be a purpose for every plane type in every battle. A B-17 would not be suitable for Ground Strike nor an IL/2 for Strategic Raid, but it'd be up to people to bring the appropriate planes for the mission - and to learn to fly a variety of planes instead of concentrating on just one.
  • Upvote 20
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I play fighters and bombers pretty evenly, but for totally different reasons. Fighters are for fun and bombers are for income/advancement. This is problematic for a bunch of reasons and points to a design failure in several ways.

The historical role of bomber formations was mentioned earlier. The problem here is that the rewards specifically disincentivise formation flying. With the combination of fewer initial ground targets, bomb splash nerf, and the dodging vehicle/ bugged stationary targets (I'm looking at you <Small Pillbox>!), the only reliable source of reward for heavies is base bombing. With numerous bombers having the capacity to destroy a minibase with one load, it should come as little surprise that the game is decided by individual bombers racing to be 1st to hit the minibase. Flying in formation would be akin to actively seeking lower reward.

The other side of the equation is that bombers are a much more *reliable* source of income. Sure I could post screens where I had a great fighter game and made more than I have in a bomber but that relies far more on luck than anything else. Obviously, there is skill but if your connection is even slightly off you have hit detection problems and, of course, the bombers can end it before you can even get going.

When you combine these factors with the focus on the grind type progression (and there IS a focus on progression grind), it shouldn't be a shock that there is a flood of solo bombers racing to bases. It is the most reliable way to progress, even if boring is not the ultimate goal. The obvious byproduct is shorter games which only serves to further reinforce the cycle.

While simply removing rewards for base bombing seems like an attractive and easy quick fix for making games longer, it really just serves to lengthen the grind further. Also, without adding other incentives, bombers go from being misused to unused. Rather, I think the solution should be in providing additional targets that are feasible in conjuction with the (oft stated) removal of auto win airfield destruction.

Return the splash damage but increase the total number of targets needed to end a match. Reduce the award for a single target if need be. Add more basses and make some that require formation bombing... say give them high reward but require that a high amount of damage be done in within a certain time to take it out... more than any single bomber can do by themselves.

Give each target a ticket value relative to importance and difficulty to eliminate.

Finally, bring the reward levels for the average fighter game up to the bombers rather than simply further slowing progression because bombers are adjusted. The result of all this shouldn't be a further slowing of progression. The goal should be to make each stage of the game enjoyable to play in its own right rather than a simple required check box on the way to what players actually want to do (or to get the ability to compete on "even" ground). There are other flight games that function this way so we know it is possible.
  • Upvote 4
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...
Going back to 1.27, there were only pillboxes, tanks, ships and the airfield as targets in Ground Strike. No minibases. Every single ground target counted toward victory, and the game wasn't over until one of the following: all ground targets destroyed, the airfield bombed, one team lost its planes, or the 30:00 minute timer expired. That's it. No tickets, no script to remove ground targets after a certain time, just those simple objectives which were easily understood. You knew what you had to do to win, you knew what the enemy was going to try to do, and every plane type had a role ... except heavy bombers.
 

I'm pretty sure all ground units including aaa, artillery were targets, and high altitude carpet bombing of tank columns was devastating but required good timing and risked lower units kill stealing.

B17s back then were not often used for airfield bombing, not sure why but probably because they lacked the speed to climb high enough and there was insufficient reward from the tactic to make it worth doing in large numbers. So these planes were instead used as low altitude tactical bombers decimating tank columns from treetop height. It was pretty ridiculous. There was a period of airfield-rushing but it was by Yer-2s because of their speed, their payload (largest in the game at the time) and the fact that you could own six of them.

 

The insufficient reward for killing the airfield is most the reason airfield killing never took off until later.

Fast forward to 1.29 and 1.31. The gremlins script was introduced which started to make ground targets go pop just before you were about to bomb them, to force an early and artificial end to the game. No longer did you have to push to kill those last tanks, you just had to get an early lead & then the script would take care of victory for you. Also tanks learned to dodge, and the bomb splash radius began to be nerfed.

 

The gremlin script was the worse addition to this game mode, watching a unit just disappear as your bomb is feet from landing on it is rage inducing.  Bomb nerfs really broke high altitude tactical bombing as a thing anybody did, prior to that 250 and 500 lbs bomb loads would wipe out entire tank columns as long as they hit along the length of the column.

Then 1.35 - minibases. Now heavy bombers had something to do & no longer needed to raid tank columns as these bases were plenty lucrative. And thus the seeds for base rushing were sown. Except that now the mode became seriously blurred. Was it about killing tanks or minibases? Could be either or both. So where did you go as a fighter? Up high to stop the bombers? Or low to stop the attackers? Because of this, it soon became obviously that fighter influence on match outcome was seriously diminished as there were just too many avenues of attack for the bombers.

 

This is also about the time light ground units stopped needing to be killed, shortening matches as well, and minibases may have had too great an effect on tickets at this point.

Then 1.37, when base rushing started in earnest. Since then, the gameplay at high tier 3 up to low tier 5 has been, quite frankly, a disgrace. One type of plane dominated - if you wanted to win, join the spacebar mashing hordes in a B17. No other plane was worth flying. In the lower tiers it wasn't as much of a problem, though it could be if you let a H6K or two escape up into the stratosphere, but still the objectives remained blurred. Games ended with bases not quite destroyed and ground vehicles (now reduced in number from the old days) still running around, why? Because "tickets" had run down too far for one team or other. This is unsatisfactory - unless the airbase is lost you can never tell exactly when a game will end.

 

Killing all 3 minibases will end the game with 5 hostile units left.

So we now have a mode that's unbalanced, that doesn't really give everyone (apart from heavy bombers) a clear-cut objective, and that marginalizes fighters. Its a mode that tries to do too much and delivers too little.

...

1.43 Gajin gives lancasters 14K lbs bomb loads, making any map without minibases a complete joke, and adds at least one such map.

 

Your history is pretty much on point, though I disagree somewhat with the conclusions.  I think the mode could be fixed by changing it to an everything must die mode, i.e. the objectives become kill all ground units and the airfield, gremlins get trashed and light units must again be killed.

 

I play fighters and bombers pretty evenly, but for totally different reasons. Fighters are for fun and bombers are for income/advancement. This is problematic for a bunch of reasons and points to a design failure in several ways.

The historical role of bomber formations was mentioned earlier. The problem here is that the rewards specifically disincentivise formation flying. With the combination of fewer initial ground targets, bomb splash nerf, and the dodging vehicle/ bugged stationary targets (I'm looking at you <Small Pillbox>!), the only reliable source of reward for heavies is base bombing. With numerous bombers having the capacity to destroy a minibase with one load, it should come as little surprise that the game is decided by individual bombers racing to be 1st to hit the minibase. Flying in formation would be akin to actively seeking lower reward.

The other side of the equation is that bombers are a much more *reliable* source of income. Sure I could post screens where I had a great fighter game and made more than I have in a bomber but that relies far more on luck than anything else. Obviously, there is skill but if your connection is even slightly off you have hit detection problems and, of course, the bombers can end it before you can even get going.

When you combine these factors with the focus on the grind type progression (and there IS a focus on progression grind), it shouldn't be a shock that there is a flood of solo bombers racing to bases. It is the most reliable way to progress, even if boring is not the ultimate goal. The obvious byproduct is shorter games which only serves to further reinforce the cycle.

While simply removing rewards for base bombing seems like an attractive and easy quick fix for making games longer, it really just serves to lengthen the grind further. Also, without adding other incentives, bombers go from being misused to unused. Rather, I think the solution should be in providing additional targets that are feasible in conjuction with the (oft stated) removal of auto win airfield destruction.

Return the splash damage but increase the total number of targets needed to end a match. Reduce the award for a single target if need be. Add more basses and make some that require formation bombing... say give them high reward but require that a high amount of damage be done in within a certain time to take it out... more than any single bomber can do by themselves.

Give each target a ticket value relative to importance and difficulty to eliminate.

Finally, bring the reward levels for the average fighter game up to the bombers rather than simply further slowing progression because bombers are adjusted. The result of all this shouldn't be a further slowing of progression. The goal should be to make each stage of the game enjoyable to play in its own right rather than a simple required check box on the way to what players actually want to do (or to get the ability to compete on "even" ground). There are other flight games that function this way so we know it is possible.

This is very true, particularly if one uses a joystick.  I deal with it, but its very hard to do well in fighters when (British) 20mm HE is broken and planes have their own idea of where they are to go.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me 10-15 min is a good time for me, although i do hate it when its a quick game because the other team just takes out all the ground targets and the bases real quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game length an issue?

Game type is an issue!

Fighter pilots do not like the game to end because of bombers winning the game.

Make a mode for the fighters to fight each other.

They will love this, it will make them fell big and important.

When you play the game what is the goal?

Grind to a plane I really want? or

Get the excitement out of a Dog Fight Mosh Pit? or something else?

With the advent of a more realistic Arcade mode Bomber get owned so easily. After all it is closer to historic accuracy.

Why take them, you cannot grind with them.

No bombers, the fighters have to annihilate the enemy team or take out the ground targets.

This causes a longer game.

Real life constraints restrict the amount of time you can play the game, for some people more than others.

With the game becoming longer it will reduce the frequency some people can play the game.

I play arcade and not realistic, because I do not like it? No because I want an exciting short (Arcade) game.

Do you like the more realistic flight model for Arcade battles? Then why not play Realistic? Because it too long and too long a gap between the action.

And now you are asking for the AB to be made longer...

Edited by BiggIes
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is....before 20 tiers were compressed into just 5...matches DID last 10-15 minutes on average. However, this ultra compressing of tiers has created a massive imbalance in the matchmaking system, IMHO. Restore the 20 tiers or completely rework/toss out BR in order to solve it.

 

Ground forces needs to have tank only battle options. Please don't shove planes down our throats. After all, planes don't have tanks shoved down theirs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is....before 20 tiers were compressed into just 5...matches DID last 10-15 minutes on average. However, this ultra compressing of tiers has created a massive imbalance in the matchmaking system, IMHO. Restore the 20 tiers or completely rework/toss out BR in order to solve it.

 

Ground forces needs to have tank only battle options. Please don't shove planes down our throats. After all, planes don't have tanks shoved down theirs.

 

Correct on the tanks. I played tanks. 

But you should not force tank people to fly.

Especially not use planes as misslies in tank games.

 

 

As a result, I no longer play tanks.

I like planes too, bit the way it is now is awful.

 

You can mix planes and tanks, but let the tankers be tankers.

And let the planes be planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a mode for the fighters to fight each other.
They will love this, it will make them fell big and important.


You shouldn't presume to speak for all fighter pilots. Personally I quite enjoy a high altitude battle followed by bomber escort & intercepting climbing fighters. Take high alt bombers away and that disappears. All you'd have is the mindless furball, with a complete loss of strategy & tactics. Even though its called Arcade, it can and should be more than that.

Real life constraints restrict the amount of time you can play the game, for some people more than others.
With the game becoming longer it will reduce the frequency some people can play the game.
I play arcade and not realistic, because I do not like it? No because I want an exciting short (Arcade) game.
Do you like the more realistic flight model for Arcade battles? Then why not play Realistic? Because it too long and too long a gap between the action.


I think you're not understanding the problem. Five minute games are not exciting. They're totally unsatisfying and tedious. A fifteen minute game allows time to position planes, to establish air superiority, to energy fight, to wear the other team down. If that's not your preference, fine, dive into that nearby furball & blow through your planes, then leave & queue for the next game - just don't force that playstyle on everyone else.

RB is not a solution as it involves far far too much downtime. Time spent climbing & seeking out the enemy and time spent in the commute back & forth to reload. That, and wobbly FMs.

And now you are asking for the AB to be made longer...


No, we're asking for a restoration of the gameplay that AB used to offer, and for the most part no longer does. The game is less enjoyable than it was and as a result is failing to grow as it should, it simply can't hold people.
  • Upvote 8
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wholeheartedly agree with long5hot. I've pretty much stopped playing WT since the awful patch last December. I occasionally play a couple of battles just to check if things have changed for better but it really doesn't feel like that. Goddammit, I would like to love this game. When I wrote my first post on the forum I said that this is the game that I've been waiting for all of my life and I still think that way. That's why it sucks so hard when the blokes in Gaijin are making their best to destroy everything that's fun TO ME in WT. I mean, I loved the old 20 tier system, long battles and so on. 

 

I bought a new mouse today and wanted to test it in WT as well. I started playing with Japanese reserves to unlock Ki-27 and after 3 battles that all lasted for max. 6 minutes I'd had enough. Those games are just too damn short, how in earth anybody would enjoy six minute games? They're just pee and poo.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.