Arcade Battle should be changed to pure tank battles

Game Discussion Arcade Battle
,
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.

562

I’m just sorry for the fact that you’re a developer that can’t think for himself and predict the outcome of the proposed changes in a game that he spends so much time in.

1 Like
563

I’m no longer a developer because I couldn’t be bothered with arguing with kids that didn’t get their way…

You also didn’t answer me about your predisposition… You’re absolutely only wanting planes removed right, because that actually isn’t going to happen…

Spamming and demanding the change isn’t going to go well, especially when you show your arrogance by not even considering anything other than that one option.

This is where all CAS topics have an issue, it’s their way or the highway, and anyone who objects is abused and attacked for little to no reason other than actually disagreeing.

564

Wow, again - I never said that I want planes removed. I want the air mission system replaced with the same spawn system that’s in naval - from them the balancing BR offset but in opposite way, and from there we can start seeing where the balance problems remain or not of SPAA vs CAS in ground AB. I predict it to get significantly better and less problematic, and when that happens, there’s a comparison between RB and AB and even RB may get some improvements from it.

I talked about it multiple times here on the forum, and on the old forum.

Who said I’m not considering other options? It’s just that from a perspective of a developer that would want to make the game equally fun to every one involved, most of the options laid out by others don’t make sense.

Pick up an SPAA is a “git good attitude” and that’s a not good approach if you want to keep the game alive - alienating new players is usually not a good strategy, although from what’s have been happening for some time in mobile, maybe the point is to limit the player base to just those who accept the punishment as they are most likely to convert. But as a player of this game as well, I’m trying to push for the approach that is fun and fair for everyone.

I would say most of topics/opening posts, not all. But all topic have the issue of people coming into them and doing exactly what you say. And that’s a problem. But that’ seems like a divide and conquer strategy from the point of view of developer - let them fight about it so we can’t say that there’s a majority in it.

But the developer here has the power to make a poll and ask about multiple options that people would have proposed, and if those options would be explained to the community in layman terms and the voting would only count people that are playing mostly arcade or continuously play arcade, then devs would have the answer.

Unless that happens, all there is that can be done is discussing the topic with others and trying to convince them that something can be done, maybe different than just pure tank battles, and that they could go vote for a suggestion or ask in the comments about it when they can etc. That’s all we can do as players - the developer here has unlimited power.

Of course I would like to have an actual discussion about the options and people throwing reasonable suggestions, but most of the people go straight for the axe to cut something away as the quickest solution without understanding the consequences from the side of the game being a money making machine and having to stay like that. I think I remember just one time that someone brought a valid idea in similar discussion on reddit, but it was about multiple players controlling single vehicle, and we had a valid discussion there. Apart from that, sadly every topic is like you said - people entrenching themselves in the only solution they want, the quickest ones, seemingly simple and easiest one.

1 Like
565

You’re in a remove planes thread, and you’re making an issue based on the fact of things you don’t think will take affect, when they haven’t even been brought in or tested…

Let alone you didn’t even acknowledge the BR differences for those certain roles of planes having any effect either.

Seems very naive and assumptive, considering you proclaim yourself to be a developer to try and make that point.

566

Yea… You won’t be able to get to some people. Especially ones that are in a topic regarding the mode they don’t play ;).

567

War Thunder is about combined warfare/battles.
Esp for arcade battles, a tank only mode would make it basically WoT with a different UI and a module based damage system (wot tried out, but failed due to having only chances of damaging modules).

568

I play it occasionally, you’d know if the stats were checked as you proclaim you do.