Arcade Battle should be changed to pure tank battles

Game Discussion Arcade Battle
,
542

Ask Gaijin. Asking another player is not going to get the answer since people are making educated guesses. This is the BIG question issue that would resolve all the requests for new modes. And this thread in particular is asking for no new mode but to alter the current GF with one as a TO in AB and in RB to be “Combined”.

Because no one ever asks Gaijin it is just between players and doesn’t achieve anything positive (see the hassle to eek it out of another player that all they ever did was ask in a random survey, thinking that was a credible way to push any of these ideas forward; does anyone else think this is the correct route? I don’t see it personally and the support for that thought is no response/a response of no to these ideas from Gaijin).

What do you mean by penalties? Everyone is a “Aircraft user” since by actions in game you are awarded with a spot (attack/defend/escort) when the “air wave” happens (3 per team plus the extras from those with successful Scout Kills, from what I recall). It is an integral part (like it or loathe it) of War Thunder GF in AB and I was under no illusion when I started playing the game, so others being perplexed is perplexing! The one “penalty” for using the aircraft is leaving your ground vehicle afk (not everyone is thinking and many might dump theirs in bad places).

The main goal of a battle is to win, well I thought it was and that makes sense, how You get there and how the Team gets there is up to the players combined. If you feel “penalised” then it might be the way you view different aspects of the game (stats? aka personally don’t play for them nor do all, it is nothing more than a niche concept and so much is missing from the charts we have).

Just remember a player up in the air (who you can see and name) now has a ground vehicle completely afk (marked and name showing).

The thing is not all LIKE this concept of a game/mode (GF ones), and I understand that. The next step would be to create a constructive and positive request and put it to the company who can answer ALL these questions.

And here we are, with AB and RB topics, but not one person dares put all this together to make a Suggestion or Query the Mods/Devs. Supposedly asking within a Survey about the game in general is all the attempts to be made (sorry, but that is just idiotic expecting a response from that).

If people TRULY want answers then asking you or I is NOT going to produce anything but arguments/discussion.

So, who is going to do it? I see one very vocal person in RB failing to ask, and another in AB, failing to ask.

This “CAS users” “Tank players” BS and division does NOTHING, especially since the questions are never to the Devs but just a random player. PROOF: No answer since that one Dev stream years ago where they said “No, this does not fit our visions and do not want such a mode” (and the look of disdain on the Devs face as he covered it briefly).

So to move forward I suggest asking the people who can answer the questions and putting this to THEM.

Or just continue like the last 6 years and never ask and just show the want for various TO options is complete BS since NO ONE ACTUALLY TRIES TO MOVE IT FORWARD beyond arguments.

TO modes would be different and allow for differing interactions with the omission of aerial threats, allowing players to focus on the “one dimension of rushing the middle and ignoring the flanks enough to get all maps limited” (yeah, I quit because of that, so just putting that there). I am sure this could be expanded upon, but what I will say that telling Gaijin “I think GFRB/AB currently is rubbish and so I want a differing mode” has not worked and will not work. People can feel these ways but it is not needed in a sales pitch and actually gets Suggestions rejected (from the history of TO in RB).

So best of luck getting answers you and others want (ask Gaijin ffs…)
Best of luck getting this game popular enough so new modes can exist. Sadly I think the grind system in the game (a focus of why people put so much time and money in) is counter productive to allowing for a more diverse set of options for players; in my opinion people forget just how niche these war games are and why there are no real other options, yet there are probably hundreds of candy crush closes, welcome to the industry!

1 Like
543

And yet you completely ignore that fact that the game HAS evolved to what it is by exactly what is happening here. People making suggestions to improve the game or make it appeal to wider audience. The fact that YOU clearly don’t want change, regardless of how many others do, is all that matters to you.

544

You don’t know if I want the change or not, you ASSUME I don’t because I’m opposing your want…

545

Yet no one has asked.

The wider audience is actually a niche audience. It is pure guesswork knowing number of players/f2p that might try if new modes were added (and they worked, aka not making huge gaps at BRs due to players spread over COMPETING modes (TOs compete with non TOs, but of course this topic is just keeping RB as is and closing AB off to air)).

These discussions have gone on for years without ANY Suggestions being made. Just remember that.

Almost NO ONE is against TOs being added. Many might not CARE or at least are fine for them to exist or not. NONE of these people are stopping others asking Gaijin or stopping Gaijin from adding new modes.

But then we see any attempt to explain this to be belittled with “CAS MAIN” and the like. The people losing out here are those wanting something different and failing to do ANYTHING about it, and just looks like taking it out on players just playing the game.

Other than Gaijin already responding to the general idea of this type of mode being NO.

1 Like
546

As I understand it Gaijin have said previously that they are not interested in doing it. There are people who have been on here way longer than me who’d have to confirm that for sure. I suppose the reason people keep bringing the issue up is to keep making the point that there is demand for such a mode. You can’t tell me with all the mods on this forum that Gaijin don’t have visibility of the situation and that word doesn’t get back to them. Given the multitude of threads and comments on the CAS issue, what would it hurt GAIJIN to take an OFFICIAL poll to see just how much demand there is? The problem is, with what I understand to be a quite rigid stance against such a change (by Gaijin), I doubt any such poll would ever get the nod.

547

So again, ASK (not just down to you, we are just chatting),

And MAYBE NOT, to “you can’t tell me the mods”. To think the Devs go through all these topics, and all the thousands of comments, is absurd. That is why we have a SUGGESTIONS section. Or do people think that is just to make the forum look bigger with an extra section?

Yes, they are aware SOME people do not like Air in GF (the entire premise of these modes…), they are aware there is no place for such players, they are aware that we are aware they already said no. Keep doing the same thing has not moved these forward.

So: Someone make a fking Suggestion ffs… If everyone is so conffident in their arguments then putting one forward, and ACCEPTING THE RESPONSE, should be SO DARN EASY!!

I don’t care about anything else like making a poll or sitting and moaning (not you, the general atmosphere), and in fact if you want a poll then MAKE A SUGGESTION (generally, not you personally).

But players talking about TOs always avoid this, as you sort of are, and nothing will change. And people will continue to try and belittle other players for daring to play the game as intended and make TO requestors pad their egos and never get what they say they want.

548

Gaijin is aware for sure. Devs answered if MORE THAN ONCE on devblogs…and a mod said somewhere that they can’t be replying all the time with the same answer.
The only lingering doubt is HOW MANY players really want it and/or would move to it…there were lots of “answers” and people that were 100% sure of both extreme possibilities…and some more moderate views…
Truth is…nobody knows for sure…even polls gave different results depending on the specific question, moment in time and forum section…results to this question actually showed me that the way the problem is formulated has a visible impact on the responses…

2 Likes
549

Yeah, that’s because gathering feedback through suggestion section doesn’t work, so every time devs actually want to know our opinions, they post a dedicated poll for specific thing and make a news about it.

But the problem is that if they’d do this about AB, it would be affected by all RB players thinking that by saying no to any improvements outside of RB, they are saving the funds and dev time for their precious game mode.

It was shown time and time again that AB players that are active in the forums talk about this issue. The air mission mode is flawed by its core design, and people just run towards quickest answer of getting rid of the whole plane use in ground battles, and devs are letting this mess to persist if they don’t put out potential possible solutions that would be acceptable by them, and let people vote. Instead they only respond to the “get rid of the planes” requests, because it is the easiest one to respond to for them.

The thing that’s supposed to be fixing planes in AB that’s on the roadmap is a joke - trying to show they listen while also slapping every ground AB player in the face, by thinking we’re all idiots…

550

It’s not just AB players though, and the spam, and constant reposting makes everyone tired of it.

If you even dare tell anyone to actually spawn SPAA, they get all upset about ‘Shouldn’t need to do that’ or ‘SPAA is boring’ and that leads to the actual problem that the face… Thier choice, and making it not thier isue.

And what do you think is the fix that they’ve listed in the roadmap?

551

That’s a different problem in RB though, that is a bit more complex there. For one, the SPAAs should have lead indicator if they are built around some mechanical aiming systems or multi-crew strategies for aiming. This is part of the reason why significantly less amount of players will even spawn in SPAAs - if they can’t do anything because they don’t know how, they won’t do it.

The front line could be a real front line where behind the front on the enemy side there are AI SPAAs and you can’t be chased in a plane towards the airfield because you’ll get shot down before that happens. This would also make it so that you can’t easily strafe enemy ground vehicles from behind.

And for the record, if you want to play tanks, you want to play tanks and not sit and cover others from the planes. The assumption that someone has to do it is a faulty one here if we’re talking about potentially changing how the game is made. The fault is not in the players not wanting to play SPAA. It’s the developer’s fault for creating a game mode and game mechanics that penalise players for not playing what they don’t want to play. And realism in that matter has nothing to do with it - you should make a game that plays well and not that is hyper realistic but you need to repair tracks manually by going out and doing all the actual realistic operations to repair the tracks. Games have conventions the build to limit the amount of actual stuff that player needs to do for it to be playable. If SPAAs need to be manned by players because it’s realistic, why we do the complete opposite for artillery? Who not force portion of the players for each team to sit in artillery away from the battle area and otherwise your team doesn’t have artillery strikes? That would be realistic and coherent with forcing players to use SPAAs.

The problem boils down to gaijin choosing to make those openings to penalise players with various mechanics so they can control the game outcome better.

if you’d want the CAS to be realistic, then it should be more like it worked in AB SQB - one team had to establish air domination to introduce CAS planes/bombers, but it was a complete steamrolling of one side by another, and wars are like this. It’s just that games are not fun this way if they are not balanced, so saying that it has to be like that because of realism is stupid. You’d rather have realistic game where the players stop playing because it’s not fun rather than take up a convention that makes the game more balanced and thus fun for everyone engaged in it.

It’s not what I think - it’s what is written on the roadmap. AB will get exit zone for aircraft in air mission which will reward you with a lootbox at the end of the match. But knowing the crap that you get from SL lootbox, these won’t be better, so noone will care when they will want to progress battle pass or make better score for event. It’s a way to do something that won’t change the status quo of current balance and control of the match outcome. Because bombing runs do decide the match outcome - if you’re supposed to win, then your bombing run will be splendid, if you’re supposed to loose, your bombs will do nothing and your time in the air will worsen your situation on the ground.

552

Yes they should. But it will never happen. Planes make tanks redundant in this game and in real life.

Until that point, take the game for what it is, a bit of joke and something not to take seriously at all.

553

There’s more than just that… Strike aircraft and some bombers will have different BRs in those matches too.

I think you’re fixated on how bad things are, and how hey won’t be fixed too much that you’re writing off the effort to actually do anything because you are judgeing it bfore it’s even come out.

554

The BR difference makes sense in air RB vs ground RB and air Sim vs ground Sim where you can pick those into the lineup. The air mission has a list per BR of what you can spawn and doesn’t seem to operate on BRs at all if you can have A10 on 7.7 BR match. I doubt that change will affect air mission.

As for writing off “effort” - even when it comes to accepting bugs as bugs, gaijin has proven that they don’t want to invest into changing the game if they don’t have to, so they want to keep the status quo as long as possible. That’s why there are many vehicles that are mostly useless because the mechanics they were supposed to introduce are dead on arrival and never fixed. They have a culture of ignoring bugs and not telling you that they don’t accept it because it won’t make money to them, so they don’t want to invest.

The whole roadmap thing after the initial economy change, which actually was something they had to do because they were forced to do by the community, is maintaining a facade of listening to the community.

Look at the roadmap and tell me that all those things are not small changes that don’t affect the gameplay much.

On the current version, there are just two changes that wouldn’t be just another changelog thing in a standard update: the exist zone for air AB and replenishment zones. All other stuff is just minor balance/economy/ui changes. It shows the amount of time they can spend on the implementation if that’s a half of the year plan here…

555

They haven’t even been brought in yet, and you’re writting them off as non-effective… That’s so dumb that you’re doing that because at least they are trying to make something…

Literally, are you just wanting planes removed, because it’s clear that that isn’t happening, so stop asking demanding.

556

I didn’t say the are non-effective, I said they don’t affect gameplay much, and that’s a difference. I’m comparing them to the few actual big gameplay changes that take significant effort to bring in that are there. My point is that they are building a list of features that mostly are small balance tweaks and bug fixes and present them as huge milestones. Yes, some of them are things that players waited for years to happen, but the point here is that there’s a systemic problem in not fixing those bugs and not solving those small issues, and now they are presenting few of those as huge milestones for the game to happen.

And valid critique is not dumb - I’m trying to show you all that it’s just a facade they set up trying to show they listen to the community while the changes are done as slow as possible to not break the money making system.

I never asked to remove the planes. I asked to change the spawn system in arcade and I proposed to give SPAAs in RB the lead indicator as long as the SPAA has functional targeting system or strategy, be it mechanical targeting system or multiple crew handling separate tasks.

Don’t put words in my mouth just to close the argument.

1 Like
557

It’s not valid critique if it hasn’t even been brought in… You don’t KNOW.

That’s why I consider you to be jumping the gun and writing of the effort to even make the change.

558

As an actual game designer and programmer, that worked on online GaaS games, I simply see where this is coming from and what’s the approach here.

For a half-year roadmap, that’s showing that they try it to look big while not promise too much. And in general this approach would be good, if not for the fact, as I said, most of the changes here are not big milestone changes but small quality of life fixes that could be just fixed along the way if the development team wasn’t for some reason so extremely limited.

And for the record - you can critique a plan if you have experience in the matter. You’re like “you can’t critique a flying mobile bridge idea before we’ve actually built it” or “you can’t say burning the virgin won’t work before we tried”. Your argument is invalid here - if you have the expertise, you should be able to criticise on the topic before the plan is implemented.

What I would see as a big commitment from their side would be for example pick one or two types/classes/groups of vehicles and say they want to go over all gameplay issues with those vehicles by the end of the year. And not like picking up the flame tanks because that’s just few of them, but like go after aiming problems in multi-turret tanks and various unique rocket launching vehicles, fix how wheeled vehicles are steering, add second ballistic trajectory to mobile artillery pieces and implement targeting sights that are not just dumb top-down view or map targeting, but a solid gameplay representation of actual artillery sights.

There’s a ton of vehicles that seem interesting but once you get to play them, they are just like everything else, or can be even worse because they have broken mechanics. That’s a big problem for the game because existing mainstream mechanics are oversaturated with the amount of similar vehicles in the tech trees while every new unique vehicle ends up nerfed or useless because of bugged implementation, and if they keep adding those through events, people stop playing the game once they catch how it works - these are only collectibles and meme vehicles, and usually nothing more. And I’m the one to say it while I mostly main VFW and Sturmtiger… but there are vehicles that could be fun and unique, but are very situational because are broken. And we’re in a place where the gameplay is stuck within mainstream vehicles, but unique vehicles are made in a way they won’t affect the status quo.

The list of changes on the roadmap is simply not it.

559

And not even I make judgements based on the coming features like you have, and I also have been a developer of online games…

560

Well, not everyone is made equal…

561

Are you saying I’m superior to you? Oh thank you.