Instead of voting for CC’s, voting for game decisions directly cuts out the middle man and that potential point of failure.
The more direct input the better.
10 Likes
Do you even read my or themad’s messages?
Those advisors would be for gameplay balance and br changes, the other things are unrelated to that part of the vote
1 Like
Yeah I should have said its only about balance.
Even though it follows the br part directly
I think a proper Air Realistic Battles rework has a lot of potential. We’ve already seen an example of what ARB could be with a bit of a rework:
The asymmetric “Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses” event gamemode was such a nice fresh experience. Of course, for a full fledged ARB rework, it would take a lot more testing and balancing to properly iron out such a major change, as well as more varied objectives. One problem I saw with the SEAD gamemode for example, which made it seem like the players are not interested in such a change, is that it was:
- A one time limited time event gamemode with fixed aircraft, that might only return for the next world war season
- There is not much of a reason to keep playing the gamemode other than to simply have fun, because missions cannot be completed in event gamemode (only random battles limitation) and you cannot grind for the aircraft you want.
(Naval EC has the same problem: very few players and long queue times, since Naval already has very few players and you cannot even complete battlepass mission, daily tasks etc., which keeps me from wanting to play Naval EC in the first place.)
For a new gamemode to be accepted and actually be played enough by players to keep it around for longer you need some degree of freedom of choice and accessibility. I’d bet a decent amount of players didn’t even see the SEAD gamemode in the even tab or didn’t want to play it because it was too restrictive.
8 Likes
Yes I do, As I just said, how would somebody who tries to dogfight in a BE6 balance it?
also the vote was not exclusively about balance.
1 Like
I meant that you need to see that part as a vacuum from the rest of it
1 Like
But yeah, I largely agree with everything stated in your post barring respawns and CC’s as advisors.
I don’t want to turn this into a debate over semantics, and I implore everyone to look at the bigger picture and lets just let the polls speak for themselves.
2 Likes
I’m not opposed to respawns in a game mode, i just don’t think that game mode should be Air RB.
I’d be happier for them to include respawn based game modes, while making changes to Air RB to keep the core philosophy intact but also making it more engaging, varied, and fun.
1 Like
Oh? so I need to see “defyn fly good, so he can fix all of game”? no he is a one trick pony, he is exceptionally good at what he dose, but that is a tiny part of the overall game.
Again my point stands… how do you expect Mr dogfight in everything to balance non-dogfighters fairly?
Reminder that A-10s cant air spawn largely due to content creators
1 Like
The idea isnt for one CC to do all balancing alone.
1 Like
I only mentioned defyn as an example and even when I did I also mentioned another CC: General Lee.
You are the one focusing on defyn, not me
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Gaijin is perfectly capable of watching their videos and considering their opinions as is.
Look I agree with most of your points, but I’ve seen too many games that I love ruined by CCs, both indirectly by promoting toxic gameplay, such as spawn camping… or a recent example exploiting the reverse to ignore armour bug or promoting gameplay styles that the average player lacks the skill to replicate.
And directly… I have seen A CC get hired to a dev team of a game I loved… he killed it in less than a year.
Yeah cuz he is one of the few CCs I actually still follow as has actually useful content if you want to learn flight profiles for fighters… Telling you what I think of some of the other CCs would involve language that is against the forums TOS.
How about we focus on constructive ideas rather than my low opinion of CCs from here on?
1 Like
So to be fair:
Decompresion to 16.0 : Yes
adding CC’s involved : no,…
because CC’s to date, are not thinking the way i think about improving the game, and are certainly giving advices to Gaijin already ( at least for some of them), and there was no improvment so far.
to me, the up most reason why the game is stuck today is the way BR MM & System are handled (badly, player result driven whithout looking at harmful consequences), and this should be driven only by Vehicule rating of performance (TWR, Missiles, guns, maneuvrability - you see the idea)
Missions:
i don’t imply ARH, they’re only impacting the HIGHEST level of the gameplay.
the rework of objectives seems blatant, making them not only in the center of the map, but all accross the map (more ships, more convoys, increased amount of entranched positions,… adding trains maybe, fixing AI air attacks) to finally help with the grinding of necessary modules (Flares/chaffs)
matches are dynamics, but played without any strategical mind (teams all rush mid-map then dies)
every aircrafts could be useful to win a match, if the game was played TEAM Wise, and not like today (due to grind making it harder), and that’s for everyone to start thinking that fighters are not the only threat. - but a game mode dedicated to this would be bad (event of B-17’s vs Me262 showed it already)
The objectives also imply to destroy ground units, after taking advantage, nobody wants to do it, but it’s still possible and i believe that in mid-high tiers, many still end up by points instead of annihilation.
Respawn defeats the whole purpose of RB
3 Likes
I’d put it to play time.
100 games can be gotten very quickly with ODL spamming.
Whereas, if you play game modes with long rounds (SB EC, and if dreams come true: RB EC), then 100 games per month become nearly impossible. If 1 game lasts 90 minutes, chances are you can do like 1 or 2 matches per day at most. With 3 hours of gaming every day, you’re looking at ~60 games per month and you’d end up excluding a portion of legitimate players. That 60 games is nearly a hundred hours played (3 hours per day, for 30 days).
Edit:
Instead I propose
- Must have premium account OR has purchased a premium vehicle within 60 days (“We pay we say!”), same idea as for OSRS “Only members can vote.”
- Must have played a TOTAL of 100 hours of games (to filter new accounts made to sway votes)
- Must have played AT LEAST 24 hours in the past month (15 hours: Each weekend (2 days), you played 2 hours each day (4 weekends) = 2 x 2 x 4 = 16 hours)
Could up 2 hours to 3 hours for 24 hours played in last 30 days before the vote.
3 Likes
I am honestly against the CC things as I believe they are not and cannot not be unbiased
3 Likes
That works too, I just think it needs something to stop the bots from spamming either old accounts that have been inactive, or creating new ones to skew results. The point about game time in sim is fully valid and I had not considered that and it’s also a good point about how fast you can accumulate games by ODL in other modes, that’s why I made a point of saying activity ‘before’ the 'announcement" of the vote to stop bots farming up the activity in order to affect the vote.
1 Like
Love when my Tu-4 get’s pilot sniped or it’s tail is one shot by a 23mm shell ignoring that B-27/Tu-4 don’t even have there ballistic computers ingame
Edited post with a possible solution that I think should be fair!
1 Like
Kind off agree and kinda not at the same time, polls can be “manipulated” by CC’s. Remember the APHE TEST? Where basicly every god damn CC cried in their videos about voting against the TEST, plus spreading lies/misinformation. [Saying about implementation not test].
1 Like