Air Domination the most misunderstood game mode in War Thunder

[LinkX 161]

I've been very careful not to conclude but instead say that this is what the data suggests.

 

 

So what? There have been pages and pages of people saying that this is wrong. If they keep saying i'm wrong, i'll keep repeating the fact that the data suggests i'm not.

 

 

Exactly what i'd love to know. And one of the key reasons i've stuck to general correlation rather than causation.

 

 

The assertion i made was that you should aim to influence the central melee / primary engagement / (or in their terminology) the furball if you want to help your team win. This related to the assertion that winning the war of attrition would help your team win. And there is data to support that.

 

And at least you acknowledge i'm in the right ballpark. The others are still clinging to the notion that i'm completely wrong.

 

 

Which is why i've been asking for post battle SS showing both team kills. Turns anecdotes into data in a flash! I'll even do the counts. The only really grey area is how we define a decisive advantage in the war of attrition. I've used an arbitrary 10 kill advantage as a starter, but happy discuss other options as long as they are reasonable.

 

 

No, we've moved beyond anecdotes. As above, we are onto the data stage w.r.t. the attrition discussion.

 

 

The counter to that would be to argue i've been doing my best to dispel the misinformation others are spreading vis. the irrelevance of certain elements of AD.

 

 

Again, probably lost in the many threads but there is a key list of suggestions that addresses exactly that.

 

Actually, no, you're still looking at evidence that is anecdotal.  Without the actual replays to show what happened, all you have are peoples' recollections and a post-summary that only gives you amounts of kills.  These serve only as anecdotes, not actual raw data.  You said you have a background in statistical analysis, so, come on, you should know better.  But, to aid you, here's the definition of anecdotal evidence: "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts."

 

At any rate, you've said your piece, now, either engage in an actual study in which you retain the replay from every AD battle you engage in.  Get a good sample from random battles of around 50 to 100 matches.  That should allow you to make some statistical conclusions.  Do a multivariate analysis of what happened in each match, such as "10 plane advantage."  "Primarily BnZ"  "Primarily Turn Fighters"  "Furball focused" etc.  Catalog wins and losses and whether the win was cap or by annihilation.  This will allow for a multivariate analysis and give you better tools to reach your conclusions, such as regression analysis and ANOVAs.  As it currently stands, though, an after action screen gives you little to no data to really utilize and that's part of what the resistance to your claims stems from.  People have their own experience in winning AD that runs counter to your conclusion.  

 

I have already given my thoughts on the proper way to win an AD battle, but, truthfully, the best tactics depend on what team you're facing and what your team has.  Regardless, this horse is long dead and we're just getting abusive to it.

[Ezz777 1,493]

Actually, no, you're still looking at evidence that is anecdotal.

What is anecdotal about a post match screen shot?

 

Recall this data is about the correlation between the war of attrition and the final outcome. NOT the causation (how many times do we have to cover this?) (and yes, that's bold, underlined and italic!!!). The war of attrition is about kills, not the when, where or how. Honestly, you appear to have waded in mid argument, chosen a side, and are just repeating issues that have been already discussed.

 

 

At any rate, you've said your piece, now, either engage in an actual study in which you retain the replay from every AD battle you engage in. 

Would love to, but also quite keen not to limit it to just my replays. Hence why i've mentioned innumerable times that if anyone knows of a tool to do this to please let me know.

 

 

Do a multivariate analysis of what happened in each match, such as "10 plane advantage." 

At this stage the data only presents the kill count, hence why i've limited it to this metric.

 

 

As it currently stands, though, an after action screen gives you little to no data to really utilize and that's part of what the resistance to your claims stems from.

But the data is there to suggest that there is a strong correlation between the war of attrition and the final outcome. The in depth analysis you mentioned would be great should a tool become available, but is not required - the SS tell that story just fine.

 

 

People have their own experience in winning AD that runs counter to your conclusion.  

 

And that's exactly why i've asked for their data. Also 'conclusion'... why do you keep using that term?

Edited May 20, 2015 by Ezz777

[LinkX 161]

What is anecdotal about a post match screen shot?

 

Recall this data is about the correlation between the war of attrition and the final outcome. NOT the causation (how many times do we have to cover this?) (and yes, that's bold, underlined and italic!!!). The war of attrition is about kills, not the when, where or how. Honestly, you appear to have waded in mid argument, chosen a side, and are just repeating issues that have been already discussed.

 

 

Would love to, but also quite keen not to limit it to just my replays. Hence why i've mentioned innumerable times that if anyone knows of a tool to do this to please let me know.

 

 

At this stage the data only presents the kill count, hence why i've limited it to this metric.

 

 

But the data is there to suggest that there is a strong correlation between the war of attrition and the final outcome. The in depth analysis you mentioned would be great should a tool become available, but is not required - the SS tell that story just fine.

 

 

 

And that's exactly why i've asked for their data. Also 'conclusion'... why do you keep using that term?

 

The fact that it is ONLY kill count is why it's anecdotal.  There's no context.  You can't tell how many players left at the beginning of the match or any other factors that more strongly correlate to the victory.  Additionally, your request for these screenshots aren't random enough to allow for generalizations.  The only people who will post screenshots are either those who are attempting to prove you wrong or those attempting to prove you right.  Due to the motivations inherent, the data is not trustworthy.

 

Using your own replays, if sufficient in number, would actually create a sample that could be used for analysis because by using literally ALL of your battles, losses, wins, etc. and discarding none, your sample is random.  Given the matchmaking is also random, you create a randomized sample (it's basic statistics, man).  

 

I'm repeating issues because you keep repeating them.  

 

Evidence of a correlation is all fine and good, but let me ask you the follow-up question to that: if a correlation exists, so what?  What are we to learn from that?  How should that effect our behavior?  If you say it shouldn't, then what's the point of this discussion?  If you say it should, then you're actually implying causation because you are promoting behaviors to achieve a result.  

 

I use the word "conclusion" because you are defending your conclusion that there is a correlation.  That's a conclusion.  A conclusion, from basic logic, is a statement supported by premises.  It's an assertion with support.  You have stated your conclusion (even if it is unproven), supported by anecdotal evidence and your own anecdotal observations.  This is not a bad thing, but, what we are now doing is testing that conclusion through dialectic.  I'm poking holes in your conclusion and questioning your fundamental purpose in bringing the conclusion into the forum.  

 

As further evidence of why a screenshot doesn't tell enough, how do you tell how many planes the players had available to them?  It is not uncommon for a person to have 6 or 7 planes available rather than the generic 5.  Some people only bring 1.  How can you tell the level of attrition if you don't know the total number of planes available to begin with?  

Also, you could ask for replays rather than screenshots.  Then people post their replays and you can watch them at your leisure.

[Ezz777 1,493]

The fact that it is ONLY kill count is why it's anecdotal.  There's no context.  You can't tell how many players left at the beginning of the match or any other factors that more strongly correlate to the victory.  Additionally, your request for these screenshots aren't random enough to allow for generalizations.  The only people who will post screenshots are either those who are attempting to prove you wrong or those attempting to prove you right.  Due to the motivations inherent, the data is not trustworthy.

Sadly i guess i must have this naive belief in the integrity of others... ... ... what the hell am i thinking!?!? :) Again, if you've other suggestions i'd love them.

 

 

Evidence of a correlation is all fine and good, but let me ask you the follow-up question to that: if a correlation exists, so what?  What are we to learn from that?

Key to this have been some of the claims made. Things like "kills outside the cap zone don't matter" can be called into question given the data suggests that the war of attrition does correlate to winning AD.

 

Moreover this all started when one fellow stated most of his AD wins came when his team lost the primary engagement. I asked for data to back that up. He since softened that to it being irrelevant. And again, if we can demonstrate that total kills do have a strong correlation it certainly underscores the doubt around those claims.

 

 

As further evidence of why a screenshot doesn't tell enough, how do you tell how many planes the players had available to them?  It is not uncommon for a person to have 6 or 7 planes available rather than the generic 5.  Some people only bring 1.  How can you tell the level of attrition if you don't know the total number of planes available to begin with?  

I'm not sure how to gather data on that. Nor whether there is any reasonable means. As such we're limited to kill totals rather than remaining planes. Hence who has the advantage in the war of attrition. It is however safe to assume that the distribution of people with 9/long plane line ups would be randomly distributed so in a large enough sample would be controlled for.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Ezz777

[LT_Nawhead 164]

Did Air Dom rules change? I just lost a match when I was in the cap zone for a good 5 seconds.

 

The ticket bleed countdown (pie has already turned one color) is just garbage time?

Edited May 20, 2015 by LT_Nawhead

[LinkX 161]

Sadly i guess i must have this naive belief in the integrity of others... ... ... what the hell am i thinking!?!? :) Again, if you've other suggestions i'd love them.


Key to this have been some of the claims made. Things like "kills outside the cap zone don't matter" can be called into question given the data suggests that the war of attrition does correlate to winning AD.

Moreover this all started when one fellow stated most of his AD wins came when his team lost the primary engagement. I asked for data to back that up. He since softened that to it being irrelevant. And again, if we can demonstrate that total kills do have a strong correlation it certainly underscores the doubt around those claims.


I'm not sure how to gather data on that. Nor whether there is any reasonable means. As such we're limited to kill totals rather than remaining planes. Hence who has the advantage in the war of attrition. It is however safe to assume that the distribution of people with 9/long plane line ups would be randomly distributed so in a large enough sample would be controlled for.

I made my suggestions. I am now dismounting this dead horse.

[Ezz777 1,493]

Did Air Dom rules change? I just lost a match when I was in the cap zone for a good 5 seconds.

 

The ticket bleed countdown (pie has already turned one color) is just garbage time?

Once zone turns one colour it's pretty much lights out. It's the colour of the zone that bleeds tickets, not how many planes that are currently in there. You'd have to effectively reverse the cap - ie meaning only your plane and no enemies are in there - before the tickets run out, and i'd have to check the timings of bleed vs cap time to see if that's even possible.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Ezz777

[long5hot 7,302]

Did Air Dom rules change? I just lost a match when I was in the cap zone for a good 5 seconds.
 
The ticket bleed countdown (pie has already turned one color) is just garbage time?

Once a zone's capped, it cannot be uncapped. Yes, the bleed countdown is indeed garbage time.

[GTAUSTRALIA 442]

I cant believe how many threads there are about this mode. A simple solution to stop all the confusion certainly isn't rocket science. I was amazed that it wasn't even in effect when the game was introduced. All that has to be done is put the rules of how to play the game in the loading screen and / or provide a link "air domination rules" above the go to battle button. Something that's so simple, that requires no intensive study or voting or coding or stuff like that. Just show people the rules and the problem with confusion is fixed. But since day 1 of the mode being introduced there has not been any instructions on how you play the game. Instead its the good people like longshot that take time out of their life and provide us with valuable information about the planes, the game and how its played. This is should not be his or mine, or any other players our job to do. The rules for all the game modes should be somewhere that's easily found and accessible for every player to read. And that Gaijins job.

Edited May 21, 2015 by GTAUSTRALIA

[Ezz777 1,493]

I cant believe how many threads there are about this mode. A simple solution to stop all the confusion certainly isn't rocket science. I was amazed that it wasn't even in effect when the game was introduced. All that has to be done is put the rules of how to play the game in the loading screen and / or provide a link "air domination rules" above the go to battle button. Something that's so simple, that requires no intensive study or voting or coding or stuff like that. Just show people the rules and the problem with confusion is fixed. But since day 1 of the mode being introduced there has not been any instructions on how you play the game. Instead its the good people like longshot that take time out of their life and provide us with valuable information about the planes, the game and how its played. This is should not be his or any other players our job to do. The rules for all the game modes should be somewhere that's easily found and accessible for every player to read.

I tend to agree with you. It's a shame gaijin are so vague on this and many aspects. They essentially leave it to the players to learn. Which as we can see can be challenging for some. What is clear tho is that the meta will change over time.

 

My expectation is that as more players understand how the cap zone works - ie where it is, how to cap and how to stop cap, more will shift towards (gasp) taking a more strategic approach. We can only hope at least. There will however always be those that play to their ideals rather than the objective. But that certainly isn't limited to  AD.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Ezz777

[LT_Nawhead 164]

This thread is super unhelpful. It should have started by actually addressing the OP's plight.

 

The cap zone is between 750 and 4750 meters. You'll know you're in the zone when the 'A' below the blue and red bar up on top of the screen has 4 white dots around it. Go forth and prosper, gents.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNU-Wyiyl_4

 

 

 

There's some exceptions to this. Especially Peleliu (1807-4807) and Mozdok. I don't ever remember playing Peleliu in live games though, but maybe I have and it was one of those drawed out games where nobody seems to be capping. It's in the custom games list anyway.

 

Air Domination Cap Zone Lower Boundary (Upper Boundary is 4000 m above Lower)

 

Britain 750 m

Kursk 740 m

Malta 750 m

Mozdok 880 m

Stalingrad. Winter 760 m

Peleliu 1807 m

Guadalcanal 747 m

Iwo Jima 750 m

Edited May 21, 2015 by LT_Nawhead

[CannonOscopy 279]

 

There's some exceptions to this. Especially Peleliu (1807-4807) and Mozdok. I don't ever remember playing Peleliu in live games though, but maybe I have and it was one of those drawed out games where nobody seems to be capping. It's in the custom games list anyway.

 

Air Domination Cap Zone Lower Boundary (Upper Boundary is 4000 m above Lower)

 

Britain 750 m

Kursk 740 m

Malta 750 m

Mozdok 880 m

Stalingrad. Winter 760 m

Peleliu 1807 m

Guadalcanal 747 m

Iwo Jima 750 m

 

Peleliu 1807 m! Really? Is that true? Does that make the hi cap 2607 m? Also, had no idea the maps had different cap heights!

Edited May 21, 2015 by CannonOscopy

[Ezz777 1,493]

Can't say i've seen a couple of those in rotation. You'd hope if gaijin do introduce them they'd at least put in a note in the loading screen. They may shift the meta yet again.

[BR3Z 568]

It's fun..

 

Wait till all the nubs get into a fur-ball at low altitude then go up and capture the flag

 

 

Loads of fun

 

 

I thought this mode had promise but I was wrong.

[TreuSchaferhund 1,017]

I understand it. I've understood it since it was introduced. I also happen to despise it. It's nothing more than an arbitrarily defined furious furball cylinder. 

[Ezz777 1,493]

I understand it. I've understood it since it was introduced. I also happen to despise it. It's nothing more than an arbitrarily defined furious furball cylinder. 

It's the ones who don't understand it that worry me.

[_Caliph_ 65]

A game about air combat having a mode that's pure air combat? Yeah, something must be wrong with it. Not. Its just clueless pilots players being put in a situation where they have to directly engage player pilots and they get handled. Air combat is excruciatingly unforgiving. Even in arcade mode with a relaxed flight model if you do not know how to stay aware or have the aptitude for flight you will be shot down by aces very quick. There is no fix for this.

 

As for giving bombers something to do, its already there. Contribute to the team by learning to fly against other players and not just A.I.

 

I get people are saying they want the option to "choose" their mission. Its understood 100%. But like Gaijin, I firmly stand behind "no".

 

It's easy to power game the economy, research and leaderboard ranking. And even more detrimentally, it allows player to avoid learning how to fly against other players in direct engagement.

 

For the most part, the "fix" air-dom whine is a veiled way of saying "let us choose" to avoid it. Because after you learn the altitude mechanics of the mode it works flawlessly.

 

And since it works flawlessly, what else could be the reason for "fixing" it?

Edited May 22, 2015 by _Caliph_

[Shanina 1,735]

Once a zone's capped, it cannot be uncapped. Yes, the bleed countdown is indeed garbage time.

That's true long5hot, but the capping itself takes some time. There the other team has time to decap, when they fail to do that it's over.
I don't have problems with that. The short games are still the minority, most take long enough to be enjoyable...and some end after one team runs out of planes.

The way it works now is forcing both teams to prevent the other side from capping. I think it's okey the way it is now.

[Sarin 2,329]

I found Air Dom, ironically, most luck based mode. When I'm playing for win (wager usually), I can pull the team to victory in GS nine out of ten times, and regular domination almost as often, but in air domination...when the team sucks, I find myself trying to stay alive against three or four enemies all the time, and even if I keep 2:1 or 3:1 K/D throughout match, it's not enough. It's frustrating...when I tried golden wager, all three losses were Air Dom (got 250 GE from it in the end).

[SunsetShimmers 7,929]

I found Air Dom, ironically, most luck based mode. When I'm playing for win (wager usually), I can pull the team to victory in GS nine out of ten times, and regular domination almost as often, but in air domination...when the team sucks, I find myself trying to stay alive against three or four enemies all the time, and even if I keep 2:1 or 3:1 K/D throughout match, it's not enough. It's frustrating...when I tried golden wager, all three losses were Air Dom (got 250 GE from it in the end).

 

Influencing battles in fighters isn't about Kills/Death but Kills/Battle.

 

For high skill players, it is generally better to not die so they can keep using their best plane and maintain their best K/B potential, so they tend to produce high K/D with a high K/B. 

Even then, influencing the battle in a fighter isn't easy; you probably need to be averaging at least 5 K/B to maintain a winrate over 50% in Air Dom, probably 8-10 K/B for 60% or better.

 

Ultimately though, Air Dom isn't luck based; the win conditions just aren't easily exploitable as in Ground Strike and Airfield Domination.

 

 

Also, I looked at your stats; in the last month you have 165 battles, 469 deaths, 1033 kills, for 6.26 Kills/Battle and 2.20 Kills/Death.

 

That is a very good K/B ratio, but poor K/D. It indicates you are a very aggressive player, and not actually lacking in skill, despite the low K/D.

If you applied the effort to learning how to stay alive longer, I predict your K/B ratios could go even higher (once you get through the learning hump) and you would end up as a spectacularly good player.

Edited May 22, 2015 by SunsetShimmers

[swedeonthemoose 12,809]

Influencing battles in fighters isn't about Kills/Death but Kills/Battle.

 

For high skill players, it is generally better to not die so they can keep using their best plane and maintain their best K/B potential, so they tend to produce high K/D with a high K/B. 

Even then, influencing the battle in a fighter isn't easy; you probably need to be averaging at least 5 K/B to maintain a winrate over 50% in Air Dom, probably 8-10 K/B for 60% or better.

 

Ultimately though, Air Dom isn't luck based; the win conditions just aren't easily exploitable as in Ground Strike and Airfield Domination.

and nowdays with the new reward system people get into airdom with 5-8 slots plus backups, now they really need to extent the gametime for that mode =_=

 

And ye i still hate the everloving ********** out of air dom but i have never quit a game on purpose and i never will even if i hate it, and if i can get 14 kills loosing 7 planes thats gg for a terrible pilot like me ^^

[Sarin 2,329]

Influencing battles in fighters isn't about Kills/Death but Kills/Battle.

 

For high skill players, it is generally better to not die so they can keep using their best plane and maintain their best K/B potential, so they tend to produce high K/D with a high K/B. 

Even then, influencing the battle in a fighter isn't easy; you probably need to be averaging at least 5 K/B to maintain a winrate over 50% in Air Dom, probably 8-10 K/B for 60% or better.

 

Ultimately though, Air Dom isn't luck based; the win conditions just aren't easily exploitable as in Ground Strike and Airfield Domination.

 

Precisely because of what you wrote, it's dependent on how lucky you get with teammates.

[swedeonthemoose 12,809]

Precisely because of what you wrote, it's dependent on how lucky you get with teammates.

lol ye, it's kinda sad when you see how the enemy team is completely slaughtering you in the air and several of your teammates have lost like 5 planes for 1 kill =_= same thing happens in tanks tough.

[SunsetShimmers 7,929]

Precisely because of what you wrote, it's dependent on how lucky you get with teammates.

 

Well yeah, but a good player can influence the battle enough to still produce more wins about 5-10% of the time than a less good player, in Air Dom.

[Ezz777 1,493]

Precisely because of what you wrote, it's dependent on how lucky you get with teammates.

That will always be a dependency. But remember, +10% WR likely equates to about 1-2 SD higher in player skill. Possibly more. Or at least based on other similar scale battles.

 

I guess the points around survivability is acknowledging that while you're spawning in and getting to the fight, had you been alive you could have been getting more kills.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Ezz777