squadron battles Squadron Battles - Recommendations from the Squadrons

[Grogdan 94]

Recommendations from the Squadrons for improvement of Squadron Battles

 

The following contains suggestions for improvements to Squadron Battles, with input from the Commanders of 1MAW, 33GAC, 525th, ARMY1, AYAME, BGSTK, BigF, BofSs, CHADS, EUA, GRZLY, HRVZ, INDIA, KAiD, KHAOS, MACV, N, NAT0, NFMG, NOI, PROWL, RO6, STAHL, xTHCx, vTHCv, THICC, TRMC, Unit3, Unit4, and V1PER. Russian Squadrons: AFI, AVR, ARRC, BOYND, EGIDA, FGA, MoSB, MANUL, NEXT, SibAr, and WarCA also support the post. Members of these Squadrons have dedicated countless hours to the gamemode and to their respective Squadrons, and their insights into potential changes to the gamemode come from that experience. This represents the opinions of Squadrons from all over the Leaderboard, not simply the "Top Squadrons." It is our opinion that the issues faced by the Top 5 may not be the same as those faced by those competing for Top 100, and that opinions from all were highly important to the discussion.

 

Please note: below are preliminary suggestions where we believe improvements can be made that will have the greatest beneficial impact to Squadron Battles for the greatest number of Squadrons. At this time we are not proposing exact, highly detailed solutions though those may follow in the future. These were originally designed as talking points for a voice chat we expected to occur.

 

To that end, below offers a summary of the discussion points we believe to be of most importance. These include Airspawns, the Rewards System, Timezones, Promotion of Squadron Battles to the community, and the Points System. Other smaller talking points were included as well, that are aspects of others, not totally discussed out/agreed on, or of less impact. The full document can be found at this link. Below will be summaries taken from that as well.

 

Adjustment of Bomber Airspawns:

Spoiler

Issue: Bombers are incredibly strong and potent. At some BRs especially, they make gameplay dull and nearly insufferable for ground.
Proposed Solution: Move bomber airspawns back over the runway. This allows more time for tanks to spawn in and disperse and for fighter interceptors to engage the bomber. The bomber will still likely get a run off, but will then be engaged or will be forced to turn away and wait for support from its fighters. This would balance its effectiveness.

Perceived problems with this solution: In the past when discussed, there was a hesitation to change this as it would also impact Tank RB maps. Tank RB and Squadron Battles make use of the same map pool and it makes sense why this is done. However, even Tank RB may welcome this change for those who complain about planes and close air support. Or a separate map rotation can be created for Squadron Battles.
 

 

Rewards System:

Spoiler

Quick overview for those unfamiliar:
There are 500+ Squadrons who participate in Squadron Battles each season. Of those, only 20 (<4%) receive GE rewards and those that do get relatively little for two full months of playing the gamemode (for some Squadrons, their total activity is greater than the amount of time actually present within a season). The GE prize pool offered is distributed by giving the Top 20 players of a Squadron more than the rest. For a Squadron placing 3rd, a player outside of the Top 20 received 19GE. A player in Top 20 received about 120-140. Winning a single tournament, which can be done in just one afternoon and often solo, would yield 500. At best, it would take 4 seasons (8 months) for Squadron Battles players to see the same amount. Squadron borders and decals, which are other prizes awarded to some positions on the Leaderboard, are removed if the Squadron does not maintain its former placement. Removal of rewards from competitive play is not seen in any other games that we can think of.
Squadron Battles are played for the competitive atmosphere and team play for sure. For some, it is the only reason they still play the game. But it is hard to deny that these rewards are inadequate relative to work and dedication put in. Increased rewards or a change to the reward system would greatly benefit those across the Leaderboard, and bring in new players who are excited about competing. That alone (more interest in the gamemode) will solve many issues such as queue times, formation of teams especially in the lower/middle ranges of the Leaderboard, and more. This will be further discussed in the "Promotion of Squadron Battles" section.

Alts (alternate/secondary accounts, discussed in more depth later) also impact rewards. Their use and abuse is done in part to help Squadrons achieve better placement on the Leaderboard and therefore better rewards. These accounts also rob players within the Squadron itself from rewards by taking a piece of the overall pie. As requested later, a stance on Alt accounts needs to be made. Officially they are against ToS, but in practice no action has ever been taken on them. We can understand why, but a stance on them is important to future discussions about reward changes.

Issue: Rewards do not reflect the dedication and effort Squadrons put into the gamemode. It is hard to motivate players at all levels to want to play, and not just feel like they need to play.

Proposed Solution: There are many. Some include sticking with only GE rewards while others propose decals, aesthetics, and others. This forum post was written two years ago but still breaks down the system and a possible changes to it well. There are further proposals in the document provided, but regardless, the system needs to be changed.

Perceived problems with this solution: Though on paper it may look like Gaijin is losing money by handing more GE out for free, we do not believe this is what will truly happen. We have seen first hand Squadron Battles players contribute to the game with their own money. Many others would be even more inclined to if they received some GE as a starter. For example: If I received 1,000GE at the end of a two month season, I may be inclined to go get another 2,500 to get a vehicle I want or premium time. Hardcore Free-to-Play players will still wait of course, but its believed far more would do the former. As stated elsewhere, further promotion of the gamemode and more players getting into it would yield similar or compound results.

 

Timezones:

Spoiler

Squadron Battles right now can only be played 14hrs out of a 24hr day. We believe the breaks this system offers are far better than being able to continuously play Squadron Battles. Burn out, queue times, and more would all be worse without it and concentrating everyone into two times makes sense. However, we believe these timezones need adjusting, and with more players hopefully getting into the gamemode with these changes implemented queue times should be less of an issue. As it stands right now, there are two windows (referred to as EU and US).
For players based in GMT, the EU window starts at 2pm/14:00 and ends at 10pm/22:00. The US window starts at 1am/1:00 and ends at 7am/7:00

For players based in EST, the EU window starts at 9am/9:00 and ends at 6pm/18:00. The US window starts at 9pm/21:00 and ends at 3am/3:00 (daylights savings shifts these one hour earlier).

 

The disparity should be apparent. The EU window is actually better for Americans than their own US window is. Except for those who work a full-time 8-5 job, who get out just as the window ends. The US window starts so late, that many need to be in bed a few hours after it starts to be ready for work the next day. The US window's late finish may be alright for the West Coast, and good for the Pacific, but most Squadrons cannot field a team that late into the US window. Those that can, are usually forced to stop as there is no one else to fight.

Issue: The current timezones are inconvenient for a large amount of the player base. The breaks are good and necessary, but it is believed that a change to the times would be beneficial.

Proposed Solution: Exact times and duration are up for debate, but the solution below shows an option that allows for the approximate amount of playtime/breaks but broken into timezones that better fit the majority of the player base. Each break could be extended to 3hrs even and still provide a good spread.

Perceived problems with this solution: None that we can see. More players are able to play the gamemode at more convenient times yet it still allows the breaks necessary to prevent burn out

 

 

Promotion of Squadron Battles to the Community:

Spoiler

Issue: Squadron Battles never has a light shined on it, and much of the community does not understand the primary and initial purpose for Squadrons. This has been made evident in a number of ways, and we think that this would help many Squadrons as well as the gamemode as a whole. It goes hand in hand with many of the other "quality of life" suggestions

Proposed solution: The document goes into more detail, but this can take a number of forms. Videos detailing how Squadron Battles works, profiling different Squadrons, Q&As with Commanders, etc. But the fact of the matter is, much of the community is missing out on what is an incredible gamemode and something that can give players a real sense of purpose to play the game (helping player retention). Not just for Squadron Battles, but for playing the game itself to improve and gain new vehicles.

Perceived issues with this solution: None. Time would have to be spent improving the gamemode and showcasing it to the general community, but it is believed these efforts would yield incredible results for the Squadron Battles community as well as Gaijin and the game as a whole.

 

Points System:

Spoiler

This has been a large topic of debate, with many thoughts and aspects to it. What we can all agree on is that the points system and Leaderboard may need looking into but we do not at this time have a solid proposal for how this may look. Aspects of the current system are good, others need change or clarification. Part of this discussion surrounds the use of Alts (alternate/secondary accounts) as well. It has long been known that alternate accounts are against ToS however lack of action has lead to many Squadrons deciding to use them. It is the feeling of many that a stance needs to be made. Either Alt accounts are not allowed and from xx/xx/xxxx date forward will be punished, or alt accounts are allowed and no longer against ToS. Depending on how you look at it, there are merits to both but the grey area surrounding them needs to be cleared so that either those holding out/not using them can start to or those using them can phase them out.
Another option, would be a point system that discourages their use. This could take a number of forms, and some ideas have been discussed but we have not landed on something we agree on or believe is worth proposing at this time. We simply all agree this situation needs to be addressed and a stance needs to be made. 

 

Conclusion:

We thank you for taking the time to read the above. To reiterate: the ideas here are nothing more than ideas and talking points we wish to pass on to Gaijin and the Game Developers. Speaking for myself, and I am sure many others, we would be happy to discuss and submit our thoughts in any way we can be it topics here, voice chats, or other forms. We make no demands or ultimatums, but we would implore you to take a serious look into improvements to Squadron Battles. There is a dedicated group who love it, boundless potential to expand it, and benefits for all parties involved if improvements are made.

To any Commanders, who after discussions with their Squadrons wish to have their names added to the above list, please feel free to reach out to me on Discord. My DiscordID is Grogdan#7021. Though I authored the document and post, these ideas are not only my own and instead have come from discussions involving the Squadrons listed above.

Again, we appreciate the time of anyone who took a serious read into it, and ask that you respond to the poll questions above and leave your own comments below. Remember, these are just ideas. None are perfect, nor have they been refined. They are to get the discussion started and were focused on overarching topics that would have a greater impact rather than tiny nuances, please keep that in mind and we look forward to seeing your responses and thoughts. o7
 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Grogdan
Additional Squadrons added

[keve20 10]

Some ideas are good and have been submited many times so why not once again it can't hurt BUT The link document is very pepega.

Many things u are asking here can be found in tournaments (better rewards, more fair competition, etc...) 
Common reply --> tournaments are with markers (no there is ones without), tournaments are giving more ge for less time play (isn't it what u want? or isn't it even better ?), you face too strong players in tournaments (isn't the purpose of a competition ?)

"Tournaments, at max require 5 players, and many are solo or duos, lacking real teamwork": Great to see people talking about things they don't even play, cuz saying tournaments do not requier teamwork i can't stop laughing, there is actually more teamwork in tournaments than in the actual sre. I don't think going to headon --> trading most of them and then sending a TU-2 to whipe the ground requier a lot of team work. (I agree this is a real issues but i just used that example to show you how pepega you are in the linked document)

I agree on the fact that Rewards could be increased but what you are asking with your league proposal is way too much, it's like 3M Golden eagles per year this is so much free GE you don't even need to buy Golden anymore, play few tournaments (the big ones that gives ge or a bit less for very low ranking (7th-8th place) + a year of squadron battles and there you go free premium for 1year or  6 month during christmas sales. 

Plus the fact that it's juts impossible to have 500 squadrons playing we barely have 100 that plays actively. This league idea wld be very bad.

All i'm saying is that squadron battles can be improved in the gameplay by removing bomber spawns, reworking the point calculation system more adapted for a 2 month season, and rewards shld be diversified (so not especially increasing GE rewards too much but some titles, boosters, decals in addition to a bit more golden eagles for the top 20 squadron, 100K GE prize pool instead of 70500 would be enough).
In that way, if you are looking for better prize, more competition and a more balanced gameplay you have to play tournaments (and I insist there are NO MARKER tournaments, and even of many team tournaments are with markers you are saying yourself it's less competitive so you shouldn't have a problem to get some free GE playing them , otherwise play those that are without markers)  

[Mattwd 61]

I agree with the forum.warthunder.com post made by forum user Keve20 as I think what he has to say is something I agree with.

[Winter_Graves@psn 112]

Increasing rewards and incentives makes the game mode more attractive to the wider community.

 

I remember how the introduction of squadron vehicles increased application interest and recruitment exponentially. Rewards don’t have to be Golden Eagles alone. If for example squadron vehicles were RP boosted through squadron battles (or only researchable through RP gained in this mode), the numbers of people playing would likely sky rocket. 

 

if player numbers increase, then the reliance on alts would likely decrease. 
 

Personally the leaderboards are meaningless, because in order to win, you have to cheat. Stacking a squadron with alts is cheating. Not only is it cheating the TOS, but it is cheating the calculations which determines the winners, and who gets the rewards. It is unsportsmanlike, and any other respectable competition or sport would ban its practice altogether, as well as those who do the cheating.
 

Until alts are disallowed or the system is changed to make them redundant for cheating ELO calculations, etc. The competitive top spots are illegitimate.
 

Without punishment or consequence, the necessity of having to cheat to compete, of having to cheat to win the top spot, makes a mockery of our competitive community.  
 

The fact this is even a topic for debate makes a mockery of the state squadron battles are in. You can not win without cheating the system. That has to change, or the game mode will never be legitimately competitive, and winning the season will never be meaningful and purely merit based. 

[Alexandros_IV 19]

8 hours ago, Winter_Graves@psn said:

Increasing rewards and incentives makes the game mode more attractive to the wider community.

 

I remember how the introduction of squadron vehicles increased application interest and recruitment exponentially. Rewards don’t have to be Golden Eagles alone. If for example squadron vehicles were RP boosted through squadron battles (or only researchable through RP gained in this mode), the numbers of people playing would likely sky rocket. 

 

 

Completely agree with this... 
i think squadron vehicles as it is was a missed opportunity to promote squadron battles and foster actual participation on squadron activities. Avoiding Squadron farming activity points were you have players in your squadron that dont engage at all in activities, is just there to get the 20k out 

[joebob748 12]

i love the idea of leagues, just don''t know how we could get enough active squadrons/make it work, but otherwise, great ideas!

 

 

[Grogdan 94]

@keve20 I will concede to an extent you are right. Those two sentences were a bit strongly worded and have been changed to better reflect the desired intent of showcasing the difference between Squadron Battles and Tournaments. But would you also concede that tournaments (especially major ones) are dominated by a handful of teams, making achieving rewards very difficult for most players?
 

On paper, tournaments yield greater rewards. While accessible by all, it is going to be difficult for the average player to win rewards, even with the rating system more recently implemented. Squadrons Battles offers the chance for anyone to play competitively on their own time and as members of a community. 
 

Tournaments have received attention and development. The only change to Squadron Battles in recent history has been changing what BRs get played in a season. While a welcome change, it’s minuscule. We both agree that the areas of improvement discussed need attention, so let focus on that rather than on two sentences of a six page document as much of your reply does. 

[Chassan 11]

16 hours ago, keve20 said:

Some ideas are good and have been submited many times so why not once again it can't hurt BUT The link document is very pepega.

Many things u are asking here can be found in tournaments (better rewards, more fair competition, etc...) 
Common reply --> tournaments are with markers (no there is ones without), tournaments are giving more ge for less time play (isn't it what u want? or isn't it even better ?), you face too strong players in tournaments (isn't the purpose of a competition ?)

"Tournaments, at max require 5 players, and many are solo or duos, lacking real teamwork": Great to see people talking about things they don't even play, cuz saying tournaments do not requier teamwork i can't stop laughing, there is actually more teamwork in tournaments than in the actual sre. I don't think going to headon --> trading most of them and then sending a TU-2 to whipe the ground requier a lot of team work. (I agree this is a real issues but i just used that example to show you how pepega you are in the linked document)

I agree on the fact that Rewards could be increased but what you are asking with your league proposal is way too much, it's like 3M Golden eagles per year this is so much free GE you don't even need to buy Golden anymore, play few tournaments (the big ones that gives ge or a bit less for very low ranking (7th-8th place) + a year of squadron battles and there you go free premium for 1year or  6 month during christmas sales. 

Plus the fact that it's juts impossible to have 500 squadrons playing we barely have 100 that plays actively. This league idea wld be very bad.

All i'm saying is that squadron battles can be improved in the gameplay by removing bomber spawns, reworking the point calculation system more adapted for a 2 month season, and rewards shld be diversified (so not especially increasing GE rewards too much but some titles, boosters, decals in addition to a bit more golden eagles for the top 20 squadron, 100K GE prize pool instead of 70500 would be enough).
In that way, if you are looking for better prize, more competition and a more balanced gameplay you have to play tournaments (and I insist there are NO MARKER tournaments, and even of many team tournaments are with markers you are saying yourself it's less competitive so you shouldn't have a problem to get some free GE playing them , otherwise play those that are without markers)  

 

With all due respect, Keve, I think your post is comparing apples and oranges.

 

Tournaments are defined by the following characteristics (In general):

>1 day-1 week duration.

>Teams ranging from 1-9 members.

>Limited by vehicle selection.

>Rotating list of vehicles to bring.

>Many different types/formats.

>Player/Team focused
>Rewards in the form of boosters, GE, premium time, decals, skins, titles and rarely vehicles.

>Requires competitiveness for one 1-3 afternoons, depending on the length/scale of the tournament.

 

Squadron Battles are defined by the following characteristics:

>2 month duration.

>Teams of up to 128 players.

>Limited by rotating BR list per week.

>Vehicles available limited to BR cap.

>One type/format.

>Squadron/Community focused.

>Rewards in the form of GE, Squadron tag borders, decals.

>Requires competitiveness over the course of the entirety of the season.
 

Further, regarding fair competition in tournaments, the competition is often not limited by rating at all. In a 1v1 tournament, a level 30 who mains tanks and has a 900 rating and decides to do an air tournament can be matched up against Vyra or Renamed or you and get completely rolled. How many times in a tournament have you been matched up against an opponent that you're able to kill by turn three? Not to mention, tournaments appeal to a completely different audience than SRE. Tournaments encourage close teamwork between a small group of people, while SRE encourages a community effort to push the whole team to a certain point. While I can confidently say that the friends I've made from tournament play are closer than others, the communities I've joined are those that I am least active in, yet I'm active in the RO6 discord nearly every day. Also worth noting: Tournaments do not build player prestige like squadron battles. The average player will not recognize names that you and I do like RenamedTV or Botya or ZELATOR or any of them, but they will often recognize names like BofSs or RO6, even if they aren't active in SRE.

 

Regarding rewards in SRE; the fact that a skilled player can earn more GE from a tournament in one afternoon than a top-20 member of a No.1 team that has been playing for two months to earn their spot is ridiculous. I can recall specifically two seasons ago, when RO6 finished third place, many of our players were doing everything they could to push the team on their free time (as was the same for many other teams that were fighting for their spot.) The entire squadron worked extremely hard for their spot in the top 3. Our total squadron activity was listed on the leaderboard as 71 days of game time. What was the reward we received? ~150 GE for our top 20 players. I can recall another time where I slept in one afternoon, got up at ~3:00PM, got bored decided to enter a 109 tournament, and collected a 200GE reward after a couple hours of playing, where the only effort I had to put in was two rounds against Kuromeces. Rewards should be increased to reflect the increase in time, and I don't think that increasing the total reward pool to 100k GE is sufficient (though the rewards could come in other forms, such as titles for players, something like "2021 SRE Season 1 Champion" for a first place finish. Something that doesn't go away, and that you can always point at your account and say "Yes, this is a thing I did, and I'm proud of it." It's downright insulting to be given 150 GE and a couple of decals that disappear if you don't repeat your performance for two months of a community effort. 

 

TL:DR:
Tournaments are vastly different than SRE and should not be compared as if they are equals.

Rewards in SRE are inadequate for the amount of work put in, and should be increased and diversified.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Chassan

[strv122 391]

Theres only a couple thing that id like to be changed or improved.

 

1.  I would like to see a increase in rewards not just for top 20 players/squadrons but also maybe extend smaller rewards for top 50. The rewards could also be deversified with stickers/decals, camos and decorations.
2. Gaijin should showcase squadrons more to the general population. They can do tournament Like "E-sports ready" tournaments but exclusevly for squadrons.
3. It would be nice to have a startcard for squadron battles.
4. The us timeslot could be extended a couple hours.

Edited February 11, 2021 by strv122

[_Ninja___ 31]

Hi , I think the biggest probleme in SRB is Airspawn because : 

 

 - It give Bomber Overpowered ability like , Kill the entire ground team at the start of the match, kill fighter that are taking off or getting altitude.

 - In many case the ground vehicles are not spawning because a good bomber pilote can easely kill AT LEAST 1 ground vehicle before getting shot down by spaa.

 - bomber can spot tank at the start of the game wich make the ground play even frustrating.

 

I dont think moving back the airspawn is a good idea because its only delaying the probleme i mentioned above by 1 minute , and the Meta 4 arado vs 4 arado will be the same.

If airspawn are disabled the ground vehicle gameplay will be a lot more enjoyable and will force the air team to win the air superiority before the bomber can approach the ao. This will allow ground vehicle to spawn at the start of the game and play more safely at least for more than 1 minute.

 

Thx for reading ^^.

[Daool 34]

All the issues above will ideally get a lot of discussion. Personally many of these issues can't be addressed until the subject of alts is at least clarified - otherwise once alts are clarified many of these issues (particularly points system and rewards) will then need to reassessed anyway.  The question of alt (or multiple accounts per owner) legality and the question for squadrons of allowing their use is causing many arguments within the player base.  Gaijin Terms of Use (ToS) clearly state Alt (or multiple) Accounts are against ToS.  However despite flagrant violation of this and multiple reports no account bans or punishment seems to have taken place. 

 

It is accepted knowledge among the Squadron Battles Community (including Top ranked Squadrons) that for any Squadron achieving a Top 5 result absolutely cannot be done without extensive use of alts within that Squadron.  Any ambitious middle ranked Squadron therefore faces a choice of allowing alts use thus breaking ToS, or accepting that top of the table results and associated top of the table rewards are simply not possible.

 

For myself I would literally beg Gaijin to make clear their position by either publicly confirming alts (multiple accounts per player) use will not be punished as everyone accepts is the practice currently, or confirming that reports of their use will be seriously investigated and the stated ToS possible punishments applied.

 

Either case will likely require some adjustment and further actions but no path of planning or recommendation can be done without confirmation.

 

[_Ninja___ 31]

 

3 hours ago, _Ninja___ said:

i cant remove this quote(just ignore it)

Edited February 12, 2021 by _Ninja___

[Winter_Graves@psn 112]

To whomever is recording the results of these polls, I would love to know how many low level alt accounts voted to allow alt accounts. 

[cervotoc123 129]

I love the ideas you posted there but i am not sure if bomber airspawn is an issue. And maybe this could be posted on warthunder reddit to get more promotion because this is well made and should NOT be overlooked by mods.

[Ambassador_SVK 716]

One way how we can prevent from using alt accounts is withdrawing 3 nations from participation every week . Every week we can use only 6 nations and 3 will be blocked. Next week another 3 bloked and previos are unblocked. This can bring greater diversity in a game. Some players are good only in one nation and this way he are pushed to try sometnig new. 

[IscleSiscles 18]

1 hour ago, cervotoc123 said:

I love the ideas you posted there but i am not sure if bomber airspawn is an issue. And maybe this could be posted on warthunder reddit to get more promotion because this is well made and should NOT be overlooked by mods.

I'd say bomber airspawn is definately an issue and either moving them back to a low altitude over the airfield or spawning on the airfield will help fix this problem. I'd be hesitant on promoting this on the WT reddit since people who are not in a squadron can vote on this I believe and this would skew the numbers massively if it picked up any traction as I feel people would vote randomly. Also, the WT reddit community is largely full of muppets who just always complain about the game and how Gaijin is terrible, the game is awful etc etc, yet a lot of the time they are simply inexperienced players and making mistakes that are not the game's fault.

Cheers, IscleSiscles

[IscleSiscles 18]

1 hour ago, cervotoc123 said:

Sorry, it posted this twice

 

Edited February 12, 2021 by IscleSiscles

[cervotoc123 129]

IscleSiscles yeah you are probably right bad feedback mostly commes from inexperienced players i was just thinking how to promoted it to community. And in terms of airspawn yeah pobably spawning right above airfield would be the best solution. And also that freaking thunderjet should NOT have airspawn no matter what. 

[IscleSiscles 18]

21 minutes ago, cervotoc123 said:

IscleSiscles yeah you are probably right bad feedback mostly commes from inexperienced players i was just thinking how to promoted it to community. And in terms of airspawn yeah pobably spawning right above airfield would be the best solution. And also that freaking thunderjet should NOT have airspawn no matter what. 

Agreed. It will be hard to promote this thread since right now comparatively so few people are experienced in SRB and know what the issues are. Fighters shouldn't have an airspawn I agree, just make the runways longer if they cannot take off.

[maguumo 46]

2 hours ago, Ambassador_SVK said:

One way how we can prevent from using alt accounts is withdrawing 3 nations from participation every week . Every week we can use only 6 nations and 3 will be blocked. Next week another 3 bloked and previos are unblocked. This can bring greater diversity in a game. Some players are good only in one nation and this way he are pushed to try sometnig new. 

I don't see that changing much about how effective alts are, but it would be interesting just for breaking up the meta alone. At the same time it would increase the burden of entry and barr people that only have a few nations ground out from playing. For some people it's hard enough to field competitive vehicles as is.

[IscleSiscles 18]

12 minutes ago, maguumo said:

I don't see that changing much about how effective alts are, but it would be interesting just for breaking up the meta alone. At the same time it would increase the burden of entry and barr people that only have a few nations ground out from playing. For some people it's hard enough to field competitive vehicles as is.

Yea, I believe it would do more harm than good. It would change the meta as you say but would restrict legitimate accounts and alt accounts would just have a premium from the new nation bought since they are rarely F2P accounts and used at lower BRs anyway since the premiums are cheaper and other vehicles easier to get.

[Ignominius 13]

I remember we had a similar meeting with zerbah about 2 years ago this time and nothing came of that, I'm hopeful this time that something is done to address the serious issues plaguing SRE.

[_Chata_ 2]

i don't know most of these squadrons :v 
Moveing airspawns back dosen't change much...
and what about "promotion", it's not like community have no idea about SQB and the playerbase is so low, they just don't want to play it because of rewards (WOW 17GE FOR PLAYING FOR 2 MONTHS) so we are going back to section about reward system

Edited February 12, 2021 by _Chata_

[Grogdan 94]

9 minutes ago, _Chata_ said:

i don't know most of these squadrons :v 
Moveing airspawns back dosen't change much...
and what about "promotion", it's not like community have no idea about SQB and the playerbase is so low, they just don't want to play it because of rewards (WOW 17GE FOR PLAYING FOR 2 MONTHS) so we are going back to section about reward system

To that “I don't know most of these squadrons”, that’s part of the point. This reflects the opinions and ideas of Squadrons all over the leaderboard, which is the best way to see improvement across the entire community and increase the player base. 

 

Much of the general community does not know what SQB is, how it works, or much about it at all. We get applicants all the time who admit that. I agree, it needs to be multifaceted. Promotion and improvements lead to more participation in the game mode, which can then lead to other changes. It’s all intertwined 

[Ignominius 13]

8 minutes ago, _Chata_ said:

Moveing airspawns back dosen't change much...

 

Disagree on this point. There are several battle ratings of squadron battles where the SB2C, a plane with very few favorable characteristics other than the exceptional turn rate and overwhelming armament is prominent for the sole fact that it has an airspawn. Aircraft such as the Ar-234, Ju-288, and Tu-2 are almost a necessity due to the ease with which they can win the battle for the team that has air dominance. For tankers, there is no counterplay to being bombed. Often times bombers are able to eliminate one or several tanks in the first 30 seconds of a match, which can be frustrating for the person who has to then sit and watch the rest of the round play out. The proposed solution of moving the bomber spawn back allows for air to still be effective, encourages a more even fight among primarily fighter aircraft, and prevents the early elimination of one or more tankers, thus allowing their fight to be more even and competitive. While nothing can really be done to address the old axiom of "win air, win game", there are ways to mitigate the overwhelming dominance of bombers in the current state of the meta.