there should be a report option for it like “fail squadding” or somethign similar, “passive Behavior” might be the “correct” on to use but we need a better more clear one
2 Likes
Yet those kind of scenarios are predictable, and could be ruled out by the game, in first hand ^^"
I don’t believe if im a reserve player at low tier but the squad is at higher br, does it seem like Stona wasn’t asking ?
I’m just explaining why it likely had to be this way, not agreeing with it. As you point out, any choice to accept lower net rewards practically has to be an “opt-in”.
Reward changes are also likely not on the table because there are a non-zero number of 8v8s and 12v12s in all modes now already, because the 16 is only the maximum, sometimes through the black box of the matchmaker you end up in smaller matches now. People would ask why their ground 12v12 or naval 8v8 didn’t also qualify for a rewards boost. Right now they can say, everybody should get a 16v16 and that’s what rewards are scaled for, but every mode has a chance of smaller matches too. If you have a 25%-50% RP bonus just to players in 8v8 air RB, people would ask for fairness. And how could you tell between a “natural 8v8” vs one you asked for, or scale people’s rewards based on it?
You say your queue times are fine before they split the matchmaker pool three ways as you’ve proposed. Other people have different ideas of what an acceptable wait is or play at different times of day and could have very different experiences, we need to acknowledge that, too.
1 Like
Currently nothing ruled out trollsquad to be played in small sessions.
Gaijin should have showed up, but it’s hiding underground trying to make suitable changes to squad at br 10 but it is always hides to lower tier players, this is so sad that gaijin hides in the shell
Great option but it would be better if it started at the same BR missiles are introduced in battles.
Ah yes, War Thunder, the game more realistic than even real life
2 Likes
Please make it that if toggled, only smaller matches are possible.
I had night battles enables since it was introduced and only got like 10 matches total.
2 Likes
With this feature on will kills be worth more as you can’t get as many kills?
We should have an option to completely opt out of 16v16. Not just a chance because we all know that “chance” is near 0
4 Likes
You were made aware of this bs way back when it was 12v12… but shocker you dumped 16v16 on us with no community voting…
opting is with a “chance” has to be the worst idea ive seen yet… make it 10v10 at 12.7 lobbies and anything below can stay the usual 12v12 but 16v16 needs to be gutted.
16v16 can ONLY work if you bothered to use EC maps only with multiple airfields scattered around so players are not “all coming from one direction” this way it actually promotes flying and using radar for BVR and awareness. beyond that this change is just awful and short sighted when it never should have been dumped on us in the first place due to literally lack of hindsight
2 Likes
Should we have an aswer?
- Yes
- No
0
voters
Instead of a chance for a smaller battle make it a 100% chance. i have only got 2 night battles since we got the choice to have them. will i only get a small came twice?
My only issue now with lowering the lobby sizes is the time per match which negatively effects rewards as its directly tied to match time/activity.
if lobbies can end up with min 6 and max 12 ide hate to see how fast a 6v6 match goes by with Fox 3s and premium players getting pulled up into higher BR lobbies with no real way to counter/understand the game enough.
I do want lobbies to be smaller but you now forced yourself into a catch 22. you either lower lobbies thus impacting match times significantly (and rewards unless these get adjusted) because ARB time to kill times are much quicker than they have ever been now (thanks to more potent weapons) OR you dont decrease lobby sizes and ruin the experience for newer weaponary like Fox 3s that will spam the living hell out of furballs.
precisely why I’ve no clue to this day why we ever got 16v16 lobbies pushed on us out of no where
Well those are players choice, if player wanna have fun by reducing threats, the level of Rewards also should be lowered.
Threat level and Reward level are always tied up.
And this is the same with different gamemodes
I think in one of the posts they said based on Youtube comments and content creators…
but your not reducing the threat… they made this an issue when they pushed 16v16 and had no clue how it would negatively impact the players going forward… so now the players have to get punished on a reward level because of there incompetence… sorry but gaijin shouldnt be punishing the players for there lack of testing/voting back when it use to be 12v12 AND EVERYONE back then wanted smaller lobbies not larger ones.
In 16vs16 you potentially have 16 players tageting you right?
In smaller sessions, the number of potential players targeting you is reduced, so the threat level is reduced as you can avoid being killed much easier
The rest of your aguements aren’t close by the problem of reward and threat level.
if you decide to go into furballs… lobbies are still balanced assuming a 1v1 1 player for every 1 enemy. yes the threat is less in a furball but again WHY should the players get punished for rewards because gaijin shoved 16v16 on us and ignored the sentaments back when it was 12v12 to have smaller lobbies… sorry but thats just a braindead take no matter how you look at it.