I don’t think those who complain pale in comparison to those who don’t mind. If we extrapolate the amount of attention this issue is recieveing in the forums, we can infer that a great percentage of the playerbase is actually concerned. The forum’s users are a cross-section of the playerbase, not just a small part of it.
1 Like
Most players dont even know the forum exists. It doesn’t mean they don’t care. They likely don’t even think that they can have an impact on development.
Im sure there are some that don’t care but we currently have polls conducted recrntly by CCs that gained thousands of votes which are 80-90% in favor of an Air RB rework or Air RB EC.
These were a shockingly large cross-section of the playerbase and is a fairly good representation.
Also remember that many of these casual players are FTP. People here on the forums are the ones invested in the game in some way shape or form.
We’re the ones who pay for the game, so yeah im sure Gaijin sees these complaints. It’s just a matter of when they actually get to addressing them.
2 Likes
ARB is old and stale. Its same thing over and over again. EC was supposed to be like mission objective based but the objectives are so ungodly far and as a fighter you would have to waste resources to actually win the game to take out AI. Most maps still dont have mid airfields so you gotta go all the way back to rearm.
Also in ARB we have the plague of bombing teammates who contribute nothing to the match and die.
Most ground targets are also fully modeled so a quick pop with your guns wont kill them.
4 Likes
At first glance, which is clearly visible, the gameplay is quite substantial for most players - dogfight on the ground, kill or the end and the next game …
No use of the advantages of a specific aircraft, climbing to a height is considered a tedious and boring evil and a lot more players who play like this at the ground require everyone to support them and play like that too…
If it suits the majority, why would Gaijin change it ?
So it happens that a lot of players leave, because the target group is regular players who came to play as much as possible from an airplane that they heard about somewhere…
Those who want something more have to go to the SIM or leave, so what’s the matter players have done in the past… The system of adding planes works, but the battles run in the same deathmatch. …
A properly created EC, with a thoughtful and variable environment would be the solution, the question is how many players want to think while playing, or do they just want to simply consume the game…
I dont agree that the gameplay fits the majority of people. I think that’s what Gaijin is attempting but the result is that the game play fits nobody.
At the upper tiers, it’s not an easily accessible game. It takes a lot of time for new players to figure out how to manage a furball.
With a proper RB EC mode, implemted correctly, i believe that Gaijin could actually create a mode that suits the majority of players.
With longer matches, multiple airfields, spread out AI and maybe even removed enemy markers, passive PVE players could do their thing with little interference from PVP players and PVP players could continue their furballs and BVR with more spread out teams, allowing for use of more tactics.
Right now the mode just doesn’t suit either of those groups. Its too dense for PVE players to be successful and its too chaotic for PVP players to utilize the skills of their plane.
Which is why every top tier aircraft basically feels identical.
2 Likes
The air component of the game, when I take pure PVP, it works out to me:
-
high-altitude and interceptor fighters vs. bombers, a fight high in the sky (+ 6000 meters), when damage to the plane and return to the airport means a loss.
-
front fighters, heavy fighters vs. medium bombers and attack aircraft … all fighters = ground start, medium bombers and attack aircraft, either start from the forward airfield or airstart to a height of approx. 1500 meters…
Or the map would have to be so sophisticated (interactive) that locations for aircraft of a certain type would be displayed as targets -
-
heavy and strategic bombers = military factories, large military stations, refineries, missile bases, airports, large ammunition depots, etc…
-
medium bombers and attack aircraft = bridges, fortified artillery positions, convoys of vehicles, field ammunition depots,
(armored trains, but here the game companies should not go and destroy the tracks so that the train is mobile until the very end of the destruction) etc…
Some time ago I researched an aerial map of Norway, in its basic form…
That map in its raw state is 180 km x 180 km … and is used minimally, while historically a lot of things have happened there, just like on a lot of others, a larger distribution of targets would be ideal …
I personally think that for:
The flight component of the game ( mods ),
it would be nice if the maps were enlarged and the front line style AI positions were removed.
Simply air combat, where there would be targets for strategic and heavy bombers, these targets protected in their vicinity by AI AAA (from anti-aircraft guns to missiles), to this, radar bases would be added at higher tiers…
Ground component (modes)
The game could be expanded here, so not only attack aircraft and tanks, but also medium bombers and heavy fighters, outside the small area of tank combat, for example artillery positions, convoys, fortified areas of bunkers, convoys, etc.
The marine component works best for me so far…
Fighter, torpedo and dive bombers, long-range and reconnaissance naval bombers, modern aircraft with naval armament, AI convoys (armed military or armed supply transports), coastal fortresses and fortifications … maps for large ships to calculate the maximum range of heavy cannon … don’t sail with a big ship between the islands…
That way, players with different machines would play what is intended for a certain type of machine and not destroy objectives that are intended for players with a different type of machine…
This is how it is true that many machines are basically played the same way for a long time…
These changes would really pigeon hole each type of aircraft and could potentially cause some major game breaking advantages.
We definitely need more interactive objectives.
What’s next you gonna start writing terms like neural net interface, phased plasma in 40 watt range and other useless tidbits to try and push your failed point?
2 Likes
If you are unfamiliar with the term “AI” In videogameterms. Let me reffer to this Goldeneye 007 N64 game guide from the year 2000 where they take advantage of the guard AI to beat the levels:
This comprehension is very bad, not even related to the chain of comments.
Lag was pretty much spot on in assisting my point, which is why I didn’t respond to your off-point post.
No one here is talking about further AI advancements used by server clusters.
We’re talking about internal AI the client uses to control vehicles.
I am just clearing up a missunderstanding in regards to the apperant disconnect between their and your understanding of the word “AI” In this conversational context.
Also a witty comment in regards to an allegation of using buzzwords to distract from to conversation at hand.
And yet, it still has literally nothing to do with the original post I made and you replied to. Once again making my exact point.
Well, it’s just an idea…
I believe that Gaijin is capable of making anything out of this game, he has the capabilities and abilities to do it… if I look at the Top tiers, what technologies he is able to model, it shouldn’t be a problem…
But I think they have some basic supporting idea ( DEVS ) …
- the game will be available not only to ultra-enthusiasts in simulating air combat, but also to regular players of online games who have WT as one game among many…
- WT has a PEGI 12+ rating, so it is difficult to ask a player who is over 10 years old to control and be interested in doppler radars and general radar technology somehow too complicated …
- I think that the priority is Ground Forces type battles … but there are a lot of players who play only one component of the technique and, moreover, only one specific setting (e.g. ARB)
- a lot of players want fast action and some planes can’t do without height, but for them to climb for even 10 minutes is tedious and boring…etc.etc.
So it’s probably not easy to please everyone…
But otherwise, I’m happy to join the ranks of those who want to upgrade the ARB mod…
2 Likes
But alas, i am a forum goblin, and i will provide information regardless if you think it is relevant to the context or not.
I’d like to see optional game modes. 8v8, 12v12, 16v16, and so on…
Having more options to experience the game as each individual wants to. It really affects nothing to have different sized servers since we can already support the 16v16.
Having an option for longer matches would be awesome. CSGO did this fairly well with comp vs the arcade modes. If you wanted to truly engage in a thought out game, you could go to comp and invest an hour into a match.
I don’t like the idea of the game being structured towards one side or the other. Some people like big matches and some people hate them. Let each have their own. Increase the match times to 30 minutes at least (in non bomber modes haha).
DO NOT let the AI win or lose a match. Only thr players should be able to do this unless it’s a specific PVE mode.
3 Likes
I think we need separated modes which accomplish different goals for what the player has interest in.
1 Like
I think there is only one real solution. There isn’t really any queue time issues except for Sim and Naval these days.
If we work to convert the one game mode model, there will always be a one side vs the other argument. The only real solution, which Gaijin needs to accept, is that we need more modes. As the game grows in community, the modes also need to.
1 Like
Aether is right. Gaijin will never split the playerbase into further modes unless they stand to gain a lot by doing that in some other way. What you’re asking for will simply not happen…
There are many players, yes. But they’re not equally distributed. That’s why some modes have long queue times.
Split 100 by four equally and you get 25 each, which you can work with, but what happens in reality is that say two modes become more popular and one is pretty unpopular, so the split becomes 30 - 30 - 25 - 15. The mere fact that the top two modes have faster queue times encourages more players to flock there, which shorten the queue times, and the feedback loop continues, until you’re 40, 40, 15, and 5.
You can already see this happen in WT, which has more game modes than most MMOs. I’d love to play SB more, but feel like I’d be wasting my time available for the game by queueing up for long times, so I just play more RB instead, for example.
Air RB is where a solution that works for everyone will have to be found.
1 Like
The only way i could see a separate mode for EC working is if its limited to the upper BR’s for Air RB. Id say 9.7+.
There is a good amount of players in the matchmaker here and wouldn’t be a huge impact on que times.
But im not against reworking the mode altogether. I agree with pretty much everything you said.
1 Like