The Length of Arcade Battles: Opinions of the Community

[PlatinumX33 1]

I personally like the length of the Arcade Battles from Tier 1 to Tier 3.

If a match is lopsided, it is beneficial for everyone for it to end quickly. Most matches I play are pretty even and last a good 15 to 20 minutes or so, which I think a good length for Arcade battles.

[long5hot 7,302]

I personally like the length of the Arcade Battles from Tier 1 to Tier 3.

If a match is lopsided, it is beneficial for everyone for it to end quickly. Most matches I play are pretty even and last a good 15 to 20 minutes or so, which I think a good length for Arcade battles.

I've had so many Ground Strike battles end in 7 minutes or less lately due to lawnmowing ground target rushing, no matter what tier I play, that I've taken an extended break from the game. For me, 15 to 20 minute battles have been an absolute rarity and I cannot remember the last time I was part of an attrition win (where one team runs out of planes).

[BR3Z 568]

The whole logic behind how destroying enemy ground targets or taking an airfield is the main contributing factor to winning the round doesn't suit my fancy.

 

 

It should be dependent on killing enemy aircraft.

 

 

The maps that have airfields encourage players to just jumble around in a big nest.

Edited January 9, 2015 by BR3Z

[RolandofSalem 280]

Just played 5min groundstrike...a Domination that lasted maybe 10min...and another 5min groundstrike...got to altitude on all of them and then it was over...I just quit playing...if you aren't in the furball you are not getting kills anymore it seems...and I like this game but it's really not worth my time if this is all we get. Just my opinion...five mins...too short.

[NotPinkiePie 325]

In my experience, these short "bomber-inflicted" AB typically occur right around the 4.0-4.7 BR range. This is where the bombers with big payloads (either by weight or number of bombers) and good dive speeds come into play - Dos, Yers. This is the "optimal" spot for a dedicated WT player who mains bombers. In comparison, fighters are just starting to get good in this BR range. There are decent climbers with pretty good armament, but nothing really shines.

 

Once you get into the 5.0-6.0 range, you're pretty much dealing with the upper crust of prop fighters. Here, rarely do you get bomber spam that decides the outcome of a match. Typically, it's just a feast for the fighters.

 

If an airfield goes out, it's because the 109 G-10/K-4, Bearcat, or whatever extreme climber didn't go and deal with the G8N1, which by the way needs to be ace'd to be the astrobomber that many people claim. More often than not, even the mighty G8N1 dies fairly fast in a match, as the Mig-9s, and other jets occasionally get tossed into the mix too.

Edited January 9, 2015 by NotPinkiePie

[Alaric_Kerensky 6]

Definitely need to be longer. At tier 3 if I fly with my normal strategy, I can kill 10+ planes and never lose a single plane, an the match ends abruptly when I finally start getting good fights. Playing "Chase the diving bombers" as bomber pilots spawn in and just sprint to unload a stick of bombs to end the match is not fun. Having players take the time to try energy fighting opponents is, instead of joining the furball grinder down below.  

[Alaric_Kerensky 6]

This is very much the case.  Those of us with a preference to not lose planes would then end up in a likely stalemate km's above the enemy horde and if they don't climb why should we go down to them?  I agree that not requiring all planes be expended is the way to go but allowing it to be victory as it is now is the right thing.

As one of those people, I take offense at the fact you would think all energy fighters are scared to adapt their energy profile. I take extra risks quite often, and despite that when I was playing seriously was on my way to an 8-1 kill to loss ratio, with most games having at least 10 kills. "Stalemates" at high alt are when one energy fighter is afraid to engage someone else who is competent at it. If I see another energy fighter climbing, they hit the top of my threat list and I engage them as soon as practically possible. I find it surprising when some pilots refuse to enter an energy fight on equal footing, or even slightly advantaged. I actually view it as cowardice. Several times I have been a kilometer or more beneath an enemy, sideslipped to avoid their dive and hit them a few times, and they will just climb away and never engage again because it might screw up their ratio to actually energy fight instead of purely B&Zing. However, once I have domination of altitude, I change what I call my "safe deck," or the altitude at which it is extremely hard for the enemy to climb and be a threat to 2.5-3km over the enemy spawn point. I descend to that altitude and begin B&Z on the guys in the furball.

 

I do agree that it would take too long if all planes were to be expended in order to end a match, especially as some people would grief with it by climbing away from the battlefield and staying out of the fight until the enemy team got bored and left. However, the idea that "Stalemates" are inevitable at high alt is laughable, those always because one side is too scared to push their advantage if the advantage is slight, not because it happens naturally. Nothing is stopping one player from putting rounds on target on another.

 

So to answer your question, "Why should we go down to them?" 

I answer: Because I have fun killing the ones foolish enough to solely turnfight. Teach them a lesson, that if they do not have the will to set the initial conditions of the fight through energy fighting tactics, then they are little more than prey for those that do. The games where i go 18-0 are usually due to a majority of the enemy lawnmowing, with only a couple energy fighters on their side. It then becomes as much psychological as it is skill to get high kill ratios, as there are methods to lure or taunt the opponents into trying to climb up at you. 

Edited January 10, 2015 by Alaric_Kerensky

[Dayse 3]

If you go high and BnZ in a fighter from the start you wont land on any airfields or stop anybody landing in domination nor will you protect or destroy any ground targets from low flying bombers. I go low now with all my bombers because they are dogfood up high and my escorts will usually go after enemy bombers rather than risk a h2h with a fighter to defend a bomber. I know I do this when I climb at the start in a fighter. I land before I fight in domination with bombers and fighters. I do this because I want to win a lot more than I want a good K/D ratio and it seems to me that being willing to sacrifice my planes in AB is the best way to win. The furball is for me more exciting than altitude fighting too. So I don't want longer battles because I get through all my planes in short ones. Risking your plane lawnmowing ground targets should be rewarded because it gives less experienced players and stock/weak planes a way to progress and influence the outcome of a battle. Without that there wont be new players. What I think I see in this thread is people wanting a high K/D ratio to translate into a high W/R because they have one but not the other. Without ground objectives being the primary way to win there is no reason for those slow and low easy targets you prey on to be there so your K/D will suffer if you get your wish. Shouldn't you just go play RB instead?

Edited January 12, 2015 by Dayse

[long5hot 7,302]

being willing to sacrifice my planes in AB is the best way to win. The furball is for me more exciting than altitude fighting too. So I don't want longer battles because I get through all my planes in short ones. Risking your plane lawnmowing ground targets should be rewarded because it gives less experienced players and stock/weak planes a way to progress and influence the outcome of a battle.

Firstly, you're right - being prepared to sacrifice your planes (ie just throw them away) is indeed the way to "win" in Arcade. It requires absolutely no air combat skill at all, and therefore is indeed newbie friendly. However once you gain some knowledge of tactics and maneuvers, you'll find this kind of gameplay incredibly stupid. War Thunder doesn't just give less experienced players a way to influence battles, it puts the entire outcome of battles in the hands of people who play in the most basic and foolish way possible, no disrepect to yourself intended.

In doing so this has become something other than a flight combat game - Arcade is just a PvE race where PvP fighting is irrelevant. I'm thinking that RB has indeed become a better place for players who actually want to fight other players - except that RB is as boring as hell due to long flight times with minimal action, poor enemy spotting and full of wobbly planes as well.

The thing is, if people want short games then they're welcome to chuck their planes away and return to the lobby to queue for another battle. Forcing that on everyone else will kill this game, as for many people RB simply isn't interesting & if AB becomes too retarded they'll just give up and leave.

[Czerwona 1,251]

Long enough. 

 

If you are competent and hunt bombers, you could increase the lenght by 100% by only yourself. 

I love to hunt bombers in my g2. I have won 3 times in a row a match last time, by killing everything in the match. 

[Sweetie_belle 279]

If you go high and BnZ in a fighter from the start you wont land on any airfields or stop anybody landing in domination nor will you protect or destroy any ground targets from low flying bombers. I go low now with all my bombers because they are dogfood up high and my escorts will usually go after enemy bombers rather than risk a h2h with a fighter to defend a bomber. I know I do this when I climb at the start in a fighter. I land before I fight in domination with bombers and fighters. I do this because I want to win a lot more than I want a good K/D ratio and it seems to me that being willing to sacrifice my planes in AB is the best way to win. The furball is for me more exciting than altitude fighting too. So I don't want longer battles because I get through all my planes in short ones. Risking your plane lawnmowing ground targets should be rewarded because it gives less experienced players and stock/weak planes a way to progress and influence the outcome of a battle. Without that there wont be new players. What I think I see in this thread is people wanting a high K/D ratio to translate into a high W/R because they have one but not the other. Without ground objectives being the primary way to win there is no reason for those slow and low easy targets you prey on to be there so your K/D will suffer if you get your wish. Shouldn't you just go play RB instead?

 

You know what, you're right. All our match durations should be determined by how quickly you can throw away your planes- screw the rest of us. You already have your wish with respect to mindless lawnmowing determining victory and yielding rewards. Because heaven forbid the game actually rewards its players for learning and improving. The game should certainly not encourage tactical play whereby you maximise the use of your plane, that's just daft, right?

 

Honestly, I don't mind if some players enjoy doing the ground attack role- it was an important aspect to air power in real warfare and that should be reflected in game. However, there should be more to it than simply pointing your nose down when you spawn and mindlessly bum-rushing the ground targets. Likewise, air combat should be an important part of the game, but maps are too small and matches are too short for a team to gain local air superiority around a clutch of ground targets, which would leave them open to those who enjoy the ground attack role. Neither do fighters have the time or space to deal with bombers who spawn with a massive amount of energy before they can wreak havoc. 

 

You're wrong about that KDR nonsense- most of us just want some engaging gameplay. Believe it or not, I'm quite happy to be out-flown by a better player, because it gives me a chance to learn and improve. 

[Dayse 3]

Firstly, you're right - being prepared to sacrifice your planes (ie just throw them away) is indeed the way to "win" in Arcade. It requires absolutely no air combat skill at all, and therefore is indeed newbie friendly. However once you gain some knowledge of tactics and maneuvers, you'll find this kind of gameplay incredibly stupid.

 

I don't find the gameplay stupid or without a skill requirement. It means players go low and take risks meaning more engagement and less camping/hiding/climbing forever.  I've played around the same total number of hours as you have interestly enough. My games are a bit shorter which could be due to being at the opposite extremes of play styles. The game rewards me in Lions and RP for trying to win with all the planes in my hanger. You might want to try it - capping the middle airfield at the start usually costs a plane but more often than not you take out an enemy on the bounce and you get pretty decent RP for it. It would mess with your K/D but you W/R would go up.  At low tiers I usually get to keep my plane.  

[long5hot 7,302]

I don't find the gameplay stupid or without a skill requirement. It means players go low and take risks meaning more engagement and less camping/hiding/climbing forever.  I've played around the same total number of hours as you have interestly enough. My games are a bit shorter which could be due to being at the opposite extremes of play styles. The game rewards me in Lions and RP for trying to win with all the planes in my hanger. You might want to try it - capping the middle airfield at the start usually costs a plane but more often than not you take out an enemy on the bounce and you get pretty decent RP for it. It would mess with your K/D but you W/R would go up.  At low tiers I usually get to keep my plane.  

 

Sure if you want to throw planes away in an effort to "win" then knock yourself out.  The objectives in this game, which require such behaviour, are the strangest I've ever seen in any flight game and yes I still maintain they're stupid.  And although our playstyles are indeed miles apart that doesn't mean I camp or hide - far from it.  I'm constantly engaging enemies, and often end up at or near the top of the leaderboard, but I seek to do so without losing a single plane if I can.  Perhaps you should try that sometime, you might actually find it a tough but enjoyable challenge.

 

All of which is getting rather off topic though.  Fly however you like, games should not be so easy to force to a conclusion, especially Ground Strike, due to the objectives being too easy which is what they are right now.

[Taranok 3,920]

Long enough. 

 

If you are competent and hunt bombers, you could increase the lenght by 100% by only yourself. 

I love to hunt bombers in my g2. I have won 3 times in a row a match last time, by killing everything in the match. 

 

As one of those competent people who frequently bomber hunts, I can say you are ignorant of the actual state of ground strike in war thunder.  The last time bomber hunters had a real, actual impact in WT was back when the 109G-6 was lower rank than the P-51, while the 109 F-4s and G-2s were considered equals to a considerably worse F4U and F6F.  When the F-4s had triple cannons with pods and outclimbed everything around them by a mile (nevermind generally outperforming everything in the era and being hideously overpowered.)

 

No matter how many people climb, unless you are personally willing to sacrifice planes to the ground strike gods (that is, pull bombers), you will have absolutely zero practical impact on the game.  Every single win I've been in where I can assuredly pin the win on one specific person, it is purely because that person pulled bombers.

 

Sure, I can extend the game time by all of 100%, but I don't consider increasing the game length from 3 minutes to 6 minutes a well-fought victory when all I do is delay my team losing because I don't enjoy pulling bombers and more often than not refuse to pull them because I hate their gameplay.

 

The game plays at its best when it lasts at least 12 minutes, with 15 minutes as an average with 22 being the high-end length.  Longer than 22 drags, shorter than 12 ends before all the pieces can fall into place, and the current metagame is purely an exercise in bomber pilots stroking their egos about how their low skill easymode wins ruined the entertainment of everyone else in the game short of the knuckledraggers who like charging headfirst into the meat processing plant, who somehow manage to have even less of an impact on the game than the people pretending that climbing on bomber hunters actually makes a difference, which it bloody well doesn't when it's all said and done.

 

Hell, maybe games would last longer if the low-alt people would try to fight low-alt attackers and bombers who dove from the bomber interceptors.  Maybe then games would last longer, but no matter what, the first payload is all but guaranteed to hit the mark, and the only thing preventing 4 minute long games at this point is the nerf to bomber gunners so that they're no longer shooting flamethrowers out to 1 kilometer, to which the bomber pilots cried and moaned about how they were nerfed and useless when they still are the people who ultimately determine when the match ends not because they have skilled play, but because the game likes its idiotic whack-a-mole PVE gameplay and makes the objective way, way too simple to accomplish while also completely screwing non-ground-attackers out of objectives that meaningfully impact the game.

 

And I'm sorry but, you're exceptionally foolish if you think the length of time in this game is where it should be.  It takes half of the current length of your average match just to climb up to bomber spawn altitudes (nevermind if they keep climbing) and the other half of that time to chase down one target.  This game is incredibly slow and methodical; even in AB.  The only people it's not truly slow for are the people who like going into furballs, but even a proper furball can take 15 minutes to properly decide which team has won the engagement compared to the other (generally it's closer to maybe 8 or 10) and game length doesn't even allow those to come to proper resolutions.

[Dayse 3]

Fly however you like, games should not be so easy to force to a conclusion, especially Ground Strike, due to the objectives being too easy which is what they are right now.

I agree. Ground strike does end too fast. Now that the airfield bombers are all but gone the suspense is gone as well because teams don't come back from a points deficit. If I know I am going to lose I prefer it to be over quickly.

[Boban_Rajovic 2,179]

I've actively played for 2 days now, easily more than 70 matches.

 

Had 4 (four) GS matches that lasted more than 10 minutes (weren't longer than 13 minutes). Played T4 props at some degree but mostly T5 7+ BR.

 

Oh and, thank you Gaijin for the lovely jet bombers.

[long5hot 7,302]

I agree. Ground strike does end too fast. Now that the airfield bombers are all but gone the suspense is gone as well because teams don't come back from a points deficit. If I know I am going to lose I prefer it to be over quickly.

This is so true, and I'm glad we've found common ground here. Back in 1.27 (and its sad I have to reach back 2 years!!) ground targets did not kill each other en masse or self destruct. If you wanted to win the mission then you had to kill them - every last one. As a result, comebacks were indeed possible and sometimes you had some really tight & tense finishes to battles when each team only had a few targets left.

Now, once the number of targets hits single figures its easy to see who's likely to win & pretty assured that you won't have much opportunity to affect the outcome. Its no longer a struggle between two air forces with all planes having a role, its just a question of which team blitzes the ground targets faster, except for the highest tiers where base bombing is still a thing (same problem, different targets).

Only in Domination now is there a chance of a comeback, with the result not determined until the final ticket's gone - though they bleed too fast in Domination as well. If I had a choice I'd play Domination all day long now & not bother with Ground Strike anymore, simply because its more of a true contest between teams with air to air combat actually having some relevance rather than simply a race as Ground Strike has become.

[NemesisGR 2]

IMHO  air kills should bleed tichets.Good fighter pilots get scores like 0-10 and it makes zero difference on the outcome.

 

Tickets should be split in 3 categories air kills,ground kills and mini bases/airfield  so if u want to win u have to bleed all the tichets on all three categories/objectives.Thus u cant win only by focusing on one objective.

Example lets say in order to win u have to destroy all mini bases/or airfield +all tanks/pillboxes +50 air kills.

Lastly if lets say after 30min no team has finished all objectives the team with the best score wins.

 

This would improve gameplay massively,every plane type would have a role and we would have some epic matches.

 

 

ps.It even says destroy enemy aircraft at the start of the mission!

Edited January 15, 2015 by NemesisGR

[Firaxin 3,181]

Tickets should be split in 3 categories air kills,ground kills and mini bases/airfield  so if u want to win u have to bleed all the tichets on all three categories/objectives.Thus u cant win only by focusing on one objective.

 

An argument can be made for having air kills bleed tickets, but requiring every objective be completed? That would be an absolute grind. After a certain point, your team will just run out of players with bombers and then what? You can't kill those tanks or the bases. It becomes either a slog to see which team runs out of respawns first, or the timer depletes and its a draw.

 

It would be like the old Mozdok Domination map where if you didn't kill all the ground targets fast enough, it was possible for tanks to clip inside structures on the airfields and then brilliantly come to a halt right there, making themselves invincible and preventing either team from capping.

[Taranok 3,920]

IMHO  air kills should bleed tichets.Good fighter pilots get scores like 0-10 and it makes zero difference on the outcome.

 

Tickets should be split in 3 categories air kills,ground kills and mini bases/airfield  so if u want to win u have to bleed all the tichets on all three categories/objectives.Thus u cant win only by focusing on one objective.

Example lets say in order to win u have to destroy all mini bases/or airfield +all tanks/pillboxes +50 air kills.

Lastly if lets say after 30min no team has finished all objectives the team with the best score wins.

 

This would improve gameplay massively,every plane type would have a role and we would have some epic matches.

 

 

ps.It even says destroy enemy aircraft at the start of the mission!

 

I've only been asking for this for nigh on a year now (or at least it feels it).

 

Ticket bleed should bias bombers, then attackers, then fighters, however.  Going after bombers should reward the most.  Furthermore, there should be incentives (bonus RP/SL) for fighters flying near allied bombers, shooting other fighters near allied bombers, and flying near bombers who have just damaged or destroyed a ground target (unless you are a bomber yourself).  Assume everything prior also counts to a lesser degree for attackers, but they get anything regular fighters would get.  Attackers are only flagged as attackers if they either spawn with bombs/rockets or if they actually strafe light targets.  Otherwise they should be treated as fighters.

 

By doing this, the game incentivizes climbing, escorting allied bombers (or bombers flying near other bombers even) and brings more people to the bomber altitude to get some excellent air combat going on.

 

After this, add more static bomber targets, add heavy static bomber targets (E.G. factories or the like) and just remove base destruction entirely from the game.  Or, make it so individual targets such as hangars are what reward further CP losses, not the airfield as a singular entity.

 

These changes alone would make fights so much more dynamic.

 

Then just completely remove domination from the game to rework it.  The landing airfields to cap them doesn't make logical sense, it promotes idiotic gameplay, and isn't fun in and of itself.  Rework it into a straight death match, but give level bombers static targets to go after as well as if it were ground strike, with the exception that your goal is to have fighters in the center of the map while the enemy has none to bleed tickets.  In this way, you will have a choice between going after bombers and abandoning the center, or furballing in the center to try to assert dominance and bleed tickets.

 

In this regard domination will be changed to no longer have the stupid base cap mechanic (but it should still have bases to land at regardless) and it's just a straight deathmatch without screwing bombers over.  Do not that this game mode should not reward extra points for killing bombers versus attackers or fighters.  Going after bombers to keep them from attacking ground targets should be enough to promote people to climb.

 

All of this should be tuned exclusively to aim for at least a 15 minute average game time, 12 minimum (standard deviation 2 tolerance) and about 22 at the high end (probably aim for 20 as the longest standard deviation 2 game).  Uh, assuming I'm using those values right.  Basically, ~82% of games should be between 12 and 20 minutes game length, with 15 being the ideal average.

 

Do that and WT Arcade will no longer be completely terrible.

[Boban_Rajovic 2,179]

 

It would be like the old Mozdok Domination map where if you didn't kill all the ground targets fast enough, it was possible for tanks to clip inside structures on the airfields and then brilliantly come to a halt right there, making themselves invincible and preventing either team from capping.

 

I would kill for that now.

[NemesisGR 2]

An argument can be made for having air kills bleed tickets, but requiring every objective be completed? That would be an absolute grind. After a certain point, your team will just run out of players with bombers and then what? You can't kill those tanks or the bases. It becomes either a slog to see which team runs out of respawns first, or the timer depletes and its a draw.

The length of the match could be adjusted by the number of tickets on each category.And draws would be really difficult since when times ends the team with the most added tichets wins.

If a whole team somehow coordinates now a game can end in 5 min(this is happening by accident when everyone is flying bombers/ground attackers) with my scenario it will take around minimum 10-max 20min.

 

Anyway imo this the only way to address mindless play like suicide bombing-ground attacking since u will at least be giving away air kill tickets and air superiory.

Players will start escorting bombers and ground attackers/fight for air superiority or at least showing some skill as a team on many levels.

 

The genius tactic lets all suicide attack ground targets will deplete all enemy ground units tickets BUT all yours air kill tickets.Meaniwhile the other team has air superiority and altitude advantage when u spawn on your fighters next to get the X(50 maybe) air kills.So u will probably lose.

Generally well balanced teams with fighters that escort/provide air superiority or air control of areas will win.

 

 

ps.Domination indeed doesnt make much sense realistically BUT it is fun  and i would keep it.Ground strike is the most common scenario anyway.

Edited January 15, 2015 by NemesisGR

[Warlord1981NL 2,235]

Games shouldn't last longer than 10-15 minutes.

[yoommik 8]

i like the current time for arcade battles

sometimes i want to be able to play a quick battle before work or whatever...not something long and drawn out.,..

15 20 minutes is fine.

[Boban_Rajovic 2,179]

Games shouldn't last longer than 10-15 minutes.

 

Invalid argument. You can always leave when you had your fun.

 

 

i like the current time for arcade battles

sometimes i want to be able to play a quick battle before work or whatever...not something long and drawn out.,..

15 20 minutes is fine.

 

I find this confusing, for two reasons:
 

1. Current time is nowhere near 15-20 minutes, at least not in T3+

2. You want to play quick battles, yet you say the battles are 15-20 minutes. Bear in mind that battles maximum duration is 25 minutes. So what are long and drawn out battles to you?

 

Nevermind... I see you're a tanker. Short battles are a serious issue with planes.