short games?

[przybysz86 10,312]

maybe it's just my bad luck but for 3 days now every battle I go in end up within 1.5hrs.

At first I assumed it's due to bomber spam but I've been in battles where there were not that many and they still never went past 2hrs mark

[Amyel 1,657]

By points? Maybe there were other factors at the very same time, but in my last game capping A provided 15k points - i thought it was 5?

[przybysz86 10,312]

yes - they always end by points. I enter game 60min into and one side is almost done.

and capping A gave round 5-6k pts before - maybe that what has changed?

Edited July 6, 2019 by przybysz86

[vmaxWT 2,674]

There are overall more events in an EC session, which leads to shorter matches. I have been in cases where there were a point capture, two battles, two cover bombers and convoys, needless to say that when all those events concluded, the superiority points jumped by 20-30k

[Spendius 328]

Right now, "only" 5 Ju288 gathered 142k points in under an hour. No air kills, no objectives, just bombs.

Modular air fields, 6 air fields, air superiority contests, the end result is 1 step forward, 3 steps back.

[Lt_Sindbad 82]

When Team play objectives You can win EC in 1.5 hours. But Need cap A, shoot down recon planes, try kill bombers or attackers, help win battles. 

If Players ignore objectives and only hunt and try kill others players games are longer. 

[_IFF 608]

The whole aspect of "winning" is just a negative aspect on playing. I want to fly and get killed. Having an event that results in people quitting playing is disruptive. At the same time "winning" makes people play in ways that results in boring game play. How about just get rid off the whole concept of "winning"?

 

[_Dawger_ 789]

19 minutes ago, _IFF said:

The whole aspect of "winning" is just a negative aspect on playing. I want to fly and get killed. Having an event that results in people quitting playing is disruptive. At the same time "winning" makes people play in ways that results in boring game play. How about just get rid off the whole concept of "winning"?

 

A persistent (24/7) 32 versus 32 match would be awesome, especially if bombers did not have third person views.

 

I guess I will have to learn the mission editor and see if such a thing can be created.

[nazradu2 3,021]

40 minutes ago, _Dawger_ said:

A persistent (24/7) 32 versus 32 match would be awesome, especially if bombers did not have third person views.

 

I guess I will have to learn the mission editor and see if such a thing can be created.

Bigger question is, will it be populatet?

Maybe do a poll. 

[IdahoBookworm 173]

45 minutes ago, nazradu2 said:

Bigger question is, will it be populatet?

Maybe do a poll. 

If there were a way to set up a massive no-bomber-spam room, I bet a lot of people would gravitate there. I sure would.

[przybysz86 10,312]

I think what we should be taking inspiration from is TAW in IL2.

It's massive camping split into 2hrs sessions. After each sessions front-line progress is re-calculated. Based on all the convoys, battles, AF bombing, etc server checks which targets got destroyed and which were repaired. It checks where offensive was successful and where it failed and move frontline accordingly. Also based on bases strengths it plans next offensive for both sides.

There is no immediate victory. That can only be achieved by taking over whole map or by enemy running out of planes or pilots - there is huge pool of those available from the start and each lost plane is counted toward it. Sometimes each map can take up to 2 months of non-stop 24/7 2hrs sessions to conclude.
Also - each player have own pool of planes at start with more being given as they do stuff and destroyed one being subtracted. Of course there are unlimited transport planes (basically unarmed bombers) that you can use to resupply/repair any friendly base and you get points toward new planes that way.

EC is step into that direction - huge one compared to Ops - but "we need to go deeper".

I do believe it can be used in conjunction with F2P grind mechanics and I do believe SB players will like that approach. For those less interested in prolonged fights we can get let them have player created ops as we have now just in case they want to create all vs all dogfight room

[Kernow1346 1,848]

2 hours ago, _IFF said:

The whole aspect of "winning" is just a negative aspect on playing. I want to fly and get killed. Having an event that results in people quitting playing is disruptive. At the same time "winning" makes people play in ways that results in boring game play. How about just get rid off the whole concept of "winning"?

 

Nice idea, especially considering how much of the reward from a game comes from being on the winning side. Spending 3 hrs just to end up on the losing side is largely a waste of effort if you needed to gain RP/SL.  And unless you’re completely happy with everything in your hangar, unfortunately, you do need to gain RP/SL.  Boost rewards across the board, but reduce/eliminate win bonus, so you’re rewarded for what you actually did and not for joining the most numerous side.

[nazradu2 3,021]

1 hour ago, IdahoBookworm said:

If there were a way to set up a massive no-bomber-spam room, I bet a lot of people would gravitate there. I sure would.

Don't underestimate the desire to unlock, buy and spade new planes. This is not possible in owm created battles. 

[Kernow1346 1,848]

19 minutes ago, nazradu2 said:

Don't underestimate the desire to unlock, buy and spade new planes. This is not possible in owm created battles. 

Exactly.  If you only play 1 nation and don’t want to look beyond WW2, you probably stopped worrying about the grind long ago.  Add in more nations and start looking at jets and you’ll have years of grinding to ‘look forward to.’

[_IFF 608]

2 hours ago, przybysz86 said:

EC is step into that direction - huge one compared to Ops - but "we need to go deeper".

Perhaps we don't. All of that is an unnecessary complication. How about just do one thing right? Namely fighter-v-fighter combat. That is a small self-contained goal that could produce fun game play. All the ideas about campaigns and whatnot are just, well to put it bluntly nonsense. I don't care if some bits get blown up if the bits are not controlled by another human.

[McSlash 389]

15 minutes ago, _IFF said:

Perhaps we don't. All of that is an unnecessary complication. How about just do one thing right? Namely fighter-v-fighter combat. That is a small self-contained goal that could produce fun game play. All the ideas about campaigns and whatnot are just, well to put it bluntly nonsense. I don't care if some bits get blown up if the bits are not controlled by another human.

Well, luckily, this will never happen.

 

[Pony51 6,572]

14 hours ago, przybysz86 said:

maybe it's just my bad luck but for 3 days now every battle I go in end up within 1.5hrs.

At first I assumed it's due to bomber spam but I've been in battles where there were not that many and they still never went past 2hrs mark

 

Ever since the 6 AF was introduced it has been like that.

 

It used to be (3 AF) that sky caps were a major source for match points, but not any more.

 

 

[Twisted 3,112]

My Fantasy is a really large battle front, with multiple bases and many squadrons. If you wanted to, you could fly from one end to the other.

 

Various squadrons and flights are going about their business and the many various types of mission.

 

Obviously there are not enough players, so the AI, goes about fighting the war. 

 

As a player, you can join up a mission and participate at the given time, bomber attacker, fighter, cap, what have ever, or if I feel like, I can form a hunter killer flight and take off immediately and see what I can find.

 

Groups of players can plan missions, if they so desire, maybe on an their own discord or squad briefing board.

 

I would really like to see ships and tanks as part of larger battles, trains are already in the game, they should be put to use as targets and a logistical resource.

 

It can be a PVE / PVP environment, obviously there will always be a resilience on AI to give the feeling of a living breathing world but aside for a singular Anti-Bot violence Activist I think most of us are ok with and understand the necessity of AI till numbers build up. This could be a world players drop in and out as they feel like, with a complete weather and day night cycle. You could sign up with various squadrons deployed along the front line and have to fly maybe 5,6 . .10 sorties as a tour of duty and build up a career, for those that are into that sort of thing or role play element, get service patches, tour of duty decals etc.

 

WW mode, falls short in that it is not a continuous war, while I am sure a lot is happening in the back ground, but you spawn into missions and when they are over, its over, you cannot enter the world, unless there is a planned sortie. It operates more as a server browser for joining games that interest you and then you participate in the limited confines of that singular mission. Its not the vast expansive 24 x 7 battle front I was hoping for.

 

A great deal of fun, would be the simple random adventure of an unscripted event and scripted mission would be a lot more fun with more meat on them in the briefing and mission details and back story, rather than of the kill 5 orcs and 10 badgers for no particular reason and get the golden axe of destiny variety.

 

As others above have rightly stated, the short game format with a win objective makes for poor game play, the objective should be the mission/battle in a broader bigger war.

 

Wishful thinking, but games like elite, no mans sky, star citizen have persistent galaxies with entire planets surely the processing power exists in this world for the European front, the Pacific and eastern as individual persistent worlds even if they are one at a time.

 

Well thats my wet dream 

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Twisted

[AdelWolf 1,098]

17 hours ago, _IFF said:

The whole aspect of "winning" is just a negative aspect on playing. I want to fly and get killed. Having an event that results in people quitting playing is disruptive. At the same time "winning" makes people play in ways that results in boring game play. How about just get rid off the whole concept of "winning"?

 

 

17 hours ago, _Dawger_ said:

A persistent (24/7) 32 versus 32 match would be awesome, especially if bombers did not have third person views.

 

I guess I will have to learn the mission editor and see if such a thing can be created.

 

 

I love you guys both 

[LostF0X 1,973]

19 hours ago, _Dawger_ said:

A persistent (24/7) 32 versus 32 match would be awesome

 

 

 

Already asked and suggested, wanna guess what gaijin answered? 

[_Dawger_ 789]

1 hour ago, LostF0X said:

 

Already asked and suggested, wanna guess what gaijin answered? 

Yes, I already knew that.

 

I don't know if I will have the time (or motivation) to spend time learning the mission editor.

 

I really don't believe many folks are interested in flying in an arena where the only reward is the fun they have.

 

 

[Twisted 3,112]

Truth be told, I don't think that in the end Gaijin will have any choice but to create exactly such an arena, regardless of what they might say now.

 

Its a simple question of evolve or die. The genre they have picked of Military tech and WWII, Vietnam, Korea are subjects that will remain historically relevant till WW-III 

 

So this is going to continue to grow and expand and will simply evolve.

 

The current WWM, I think is neither immersive nor does it give you the scale of a vast military engagement, I could be wrong, but that is what I gathered from the little bit my kid and me played. In the end, it was simpler to simply join random battles for the same thing and given the choice, EC fit more the style of game play we would look for and while the stats may be persistent, the world is not.

 

There are some things that must inevitably happen, I count turrets and bomb sights among them.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Twisted

[Dobs_475TH 515]

53 minutes ago, Twisted said:

 

There are some things that must inevitably happen, I count turrets and bomb sights among them.

Man I hope so.....the part of SIM that is still arcade needs to "sim'd".  Watched a bomber with one wing, falling 90 degrees nose low in a spin, shoot and kill dawger last night...thank you space stabilized dweeb view!

But honestly, the rewards for bomibng is so far out of whack from aerial kills it leads them to bombing.  For those who think the matches are about "WINNING" and end up with 1 kill and 17 deaths and think they WON....well...you would have made a great Japanese fighter in the late part of WWII.  Its about the combat while playing.....the fights that occur while playing.  I honestly don't care (other than someone killing a good room with constant bomber spam)....

 

The strategic LW bombers are so jacked up its not even funny.  Watching a fully loaded WWII prop BOMBER climb at 3000 fpm at 250+ mph is ludicrous.....Watching them do a 7.5 G, 135 degree slice maneuver after dropping and diving out at350+ mph is almost comical.  I mean you gotta wonder if they believe the quote "...when the Germans bombed Peal Harbor"...

1) Make graphics for the gun positions

2) Make them able to be manned (while plane stays on last course/altitude)

3) Make them give call outs "Waist gunner--Bandit 9 O'clock low!"
4) Allow other players to join as your gunners!
5) Make bombsights have to be calibrated!  If you deviate from your IP to Target run in speed or altitude, your sight is that much inaccurate.

6) Put skill into being a bomber pilot....(I think you'd be surprised at guys who would get really good at the above)

7) Make the strategic points awarded for killing at STRATEGIC ASSET much higher than current standards. If they can roll up the points by bombing, then the loss of a strategic asset should be painful!

 

 

But work required, and Im sure they are neck deep in making the radar accurate....

 

[Twisted 3,112]

1 hour ago, Dobs_ said:

5) Make bombsights have to be calibrated!  If you deviate from your IP to Target run in speed or altitude, your sight is that much inaccurate.

 

 

Yes, totally agree, that is something they should be able to right away, they should have to feed in Height and speed of a level delivery and if they dont meet the parameters, the bombs should miss. They can easily add these parameters to the load out selection screen, do it at the start of the mission, or even adjust during flight, but this laser accurate bombing reticle, regardless of height speed and attitude, is pure bull poop.

 

And its time to do away with the spinning bombers shooting targets . .thats way too much, I think its the thing I hate most in war thunder.

 

On a side note, stealth ammo is the way to go with bombers, mostly they find you because of the tracers, so a diving slashing attack or belly attack with stealth ammo and they don't know where the hell you are, you can pretty much shred them before they figure out where you are coming from.

 

Any ways . .hope lives eternal

 

 

you know . .now that I think about it, the only way the present ridiculous bomb sight could work is if they have not implemented the proper Bomb ballistics and they follow a straight path to the cursor point when the space bar is pressed.

 

Boom!!!

Edited July 7, 2019 by Twisted

[Stakke 45]

To get back to the initial question ;-)

I get the feeling that there was an important change in hw points are calculated.
Apart from the zombing, which has too big of an impact on winning matches, I played somematches recently where I couldn't make out out how my team won and even more, how we lost the game.
With only a few bombers (like 2) on the opposite team and home team winning objective after objectve we still kept trailing in points. In game chat showed similar feelings from teammates.

How are those points calculated at present?