Normalize sensory overload ≠ “awareness”
The norm should not be wanting to have a stroke from looking out for 16 other people.
10 Likes
That’s what BR choice is about.
No one forces us to play 12.0 and higher.
And 12.0 and higher SHOULD be more difficult than lower BRs.
There is an enormous difference between 5 vs 5 and 16 vs 16.
16 vs 16 is not a cog in the machine. Its completely random. The vast majority of 16 vs 16 battles end with 6 vs 1 or 8 vs 1 or worse. Its a team wipe. It’s not competitive.
Plus being in a plane is a lot different than being a soldier on the ground. Cog in the machine applies far more to a soldier on the ground then a pilot in a 40 million dollar aircraft.
Like i said above. There is an enormous gap between 16 vs 16 and 5 vs 5. Tournaments are 5 vs 5 but the Air RB game mode should not be 16 vs 16. 12 vs 12 is far better but 10 vs 10 would be even more appropriate.
Or they can keep 16 vs 16 but change the maps and mode. 16 vs 16 could work in a more EC mode with respawns, multiple spawnpoints. Numerous objectives, etc.
16 vs 16 does not work as is. It’s replayability is aweful.
6 Likes
Neither of those give me anything. I want to play the game normally, and not end up in a massive furball. If I wanted that, I would play arcade.
They always happen, but 16v16 makes them worse and more common.
Depends. If everyone gets kills at the same rate, then yes it does lead to shorter matches. But I don’t think it will, because there are fewer people to go for, and people are less likely to yolo into a furball and die right away.
4 Likes
It is. The difficulty shouldn’t come from a mass of players all grouped in one area like arcade, but rather from the more complex systems and strategies, such as BVR combat, and other strategies.
2 Likes
As I said previously, the best solution is to re-activate the older smaller maps for the Counter-Strike people that want less people overall, and obviously faster matches.
You can have your smaller shorter games, and others can have their 5+ minute matches of 16v16.
No, name a singular <2 minute match that happened in the last week.
You can’t; yet <2 minute matches were the norm for more than 3 weeks as Gaijin tried to fix Su-17M2 and A-7 from steamrolling matches.
Matches today last more than triple the length of the fastest common steamrolls during those days.
How do you know they will be faster? I don’t think they will be, because there will be less frequent kills. You would also be able to use different play styles more effectively without the risk of being 3rd partied. Saying it is like CS is disingenuous because CS is a totally different game, with different mechanics and gamemodes.
You don’t understand my point. I assume those planes were very good, and were able to abuse their airspawn in order to kill players very easily. This does not happen in modern WT.
When I say steamroll, I don’t mean a sub 2 minute match, I mean one that ends in an incredibly unbalanced way. I very rarely saw 1v5+ matches in the 12v12 matchmaker, now it’s all I see in 16v16. They did happen, but not at the frequency they do now.
You are simply not understanding what people are saying, or you are choosing to ignore what they are saying.
I just want to not be forced to play 16v16 constantly. It does not make the game better in a meaningful way, and it just makes high tier feel much more like a furball that you would see in AAB.
6 Likes
In most MMOs, only about 5-20% of any game’s playerbase is subscribed to whatever that game’s “elite status” is. I highly doubt WT is any different in that regard.
Thus, I frankly bet that you’re overestimating the potential of such “premium perks” to “break” the matchmaker.
1 Like
Mine would not be quite that small, but I’d really only want ~10 maps tops. If finer customization was an option to only allow one version of a map but not others, probably as many as 15 different maps.
I cannot stand all the purely city maps. My favorites are the ones with a good mix of both.
My all-time favorite in years past was Poland, but after the “update” to said map I like it a lot less - by placing hedgerows leading to the A cap from the forest in the north edge, it makes it far less practical to cover that area and not be point-blank-stupidity range.
My other all-time favorite is now restricted to 9.7+ which I don’t even play, large-size (aka normal-size) Maginot Line. It has a nice mix of all playstyles allowed on it, with one cap dedicated to each play style - long-range at C, med-range at B, city at A.
1 Like
This is the key to bringing much-needed flavor back to the game. But oh wait, the CommunistBalls of the world would get up in arms about occasionally having to cut grass like the rest of us, such insanity!
The lack of idiotic red enemy markers is why I recommend Combined modes to anyone sick of hairballing in Air RB. Given how CAS is so universally-hated, the diehard tankers would always appreciate a skilled CAP user to shoot it down. No markers means far less 3rd partying.
And yet, the vehicles in WT are nowhere near as small, quiet, stealthy, and agile as infantry are. There is only so much “awareness” you can possibly have in the majority of machines.
A plane can really only deal with maybe two opponents focusing solely on him at one time, preferably just one. Same with a tank that has a non-instantaneous reload. Same with a Patrol Boat. Same with a Bluewater ship trying to have a long range artillery duel with another similar ship.
Some people do want hairball madness, others like me prefer something akin to chess.
4 Likes
I knew this excuse would pop up.
I knew it.
You patently KNOW that the vast majority of the playerbase does not read changelog, does not watch video and does not read articles. This kind of information has to be on the nose, like, straight up asking you if you want to turn it OFF when starting the first match of the day (not ON, it should be an OPT-OUT option, either that or a separate matchmaking). It’s basic UI design. 80% of the playerbase is ignorant of how the game evolve. It’s the same in every game in existence.
And you know it. You’ve been in the Warthunder community long enough Stona, you know how the playerbase is.
This entire things reeks of an excuse. A bone thrown to the community, only to hide behind the excuse of “see, we gave you what you want and nobody is using it”. This is, quite frankly, dishonest. And the saddest thing maybe, is that i expected it from the second it was announced.
Do better, Gaijin.
12 Likes
Also.
Changelogs are, frankly, horribly formatted. I don’t say this as a layperson either - I do amateur/open-source game dev for SS13 and the way the changelogs are formatted means the critical information is lost in a sea of superfluous/“this does not concern me” entries.
I have read the changelog, yet I missed the critical change to default keybinds that break manipulating the throttle and roll of a plane. Why? Because it was buried at the end of it after it primed me to skim large blocks of text as none of it was relevant to me.
A changelog should have the most wide-reaching, universally applicable changes first and only go into exotic details at the end.
As it is right now, I have to scroll for ~6-8 screen heights on a 21 inch monitor (1920x1080) to even reach information about map changes because of the new vehicles list going first for whatever reason.
The map/mission, vehicle-specific and flight model changes are nicely formatted and readable. However, they are in the wrong place. It should be at the end with the new vehicles after all universal mechanics that apply regardless of vehicle and map were introduced and explained.
To make matters worse, a bunch of pages’ worth of model changes follow after this, further making the actual changes more and more inscrutable.
The Game mechanics changes, on the other hand, are terribly formatted.
It’s a bunch of walls of text on bullet points where the first sentence tells you nothing.
- For Air Realistic Battles, a game mode setting that allows you to participate in battles with smaller team sizes (maximum 12 players per team) has been added. To enable the option, go to the game mode selection window (under the “To Battle!” button), then on the Air Realistic Battles button. Here click “Game Mode Settings” and toggle the “Participate in battles with smaller team sizes” option. This option is only available for aircraft with a Battle Rating of 10.0 or higher.
You’re reading, you see no bolded part and you have no mention of the actual change until the second line.
It should’ve been presented as:
-
New Matchmaker Option For Air Realistic Battles, a game mode setting that allows you to participate in battles with smaller team sizes (maximum 12 players per team) has been added.
- To enable the option, go to the game mode selection window (under the “To Battle!” button), then on the Air Realistic Battles button. Here click “Game Mode Settings” and toggle the “Participate in battles with smaller team sizes” option.
- This option is only available for aircraft with a Battle Rating of 10.0 or higher.
Now you actually have high glance value that catches players’ attention, makes them stop and tells them: This is relevant for you!
Each sunday when we update our server, we spend a while in staff chat discussing how to best present changes to the playerbase with heavy emphasis on glance-value and “our players are idiots. We need to idiot proof any change that we want them to engage with, possibly using MoTD and popups as well to be extra sure.”
This changelog meanwhile feels like someone took the summary section of pull requests and just posted it publicly.
And I havn’t even mentioned the fact that a change to basic aircraft controls is buried in another wall of text.
As a rule of thumb, the first sentence of a paragraph should tell you all you need to know. It should also be succint and to the point. Use the rest of the text body to go on elaborations and parenthetical explanations.
In well-written scientific publications, you can get a gist of what it is all about by just skimming the first sentence of each paragraph - or even the first paragraph of each significant section.
9 Likes
I’m giving up on this game until either the 12v12 toggle ensures a 12v12 match 100% of the time or Air RB EC is reintroduced into the game.
4th gen aircraft should not be forced to fight like ww2 planes.
9 Likes
Players adapt to the environment, this is why furballs happen, this is why ODL happens.
1 Like
And you know as well as everyone else the vast majority of people do not engage with any of that.
2 Likes
negative, you will need more attention and individual skill, since you can no longer be saved by 10 other players… this Alvis Wisla is always against, man
5 Likes
Not really, it is a choice (aka furball players aka US ground striking in fighters (not jet tier)).
This was noticeable before 16 v 16s and much worse (personally) after they increased match sizes.
The sides that did better are often the ones with the patient players who climbed and clear up what is left when all energy is dumped.
That was my experience anyway.
1 Like
Before the side that did better was just the nation with fewer ground strikers.
Once people got to top tier they would fly up high and randomly die so they’d fly lower to avoid it.
Yeah, I have no comment on top tiers as got stuck around 7.0 (too many nations and I spade all. My 6.0-7.0 Germany was next as 100% unlocked but just gave up after narrow ground maps and too many quick and out players in ARB, in my matches).
As Germany you’re just screwed with the Ju 288 on your team.
1 Like