squadron battles Squadron Battles - Recommendations from the Squadrons

[_Chata_ 2]

5 hours ago, Ignominius said:

 

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.

for me the only solution still remains is removing airspawn, moving it back either only delays being bombed in most cases (bomber will still have speed at the beginning of battle, when fighters have to take time to start), or when moved much further than AF they will become nearly useless

[Grogdan 94]

2 hours ago, _Chata_ said:

for me the only solution still remains is removing airspawn, moving it back either only delays being bombed in most cases (bomber will still have speed at the beginning of battle, when fighters have to take time to start), or when moved much further than AF they will become nearly useless

As mentioned in the initial post, moving them back over the airfield would allow tanks to spawn in and spread out on the ground, while allowing fighters to get into position to intercept the bomber. You are right, the bomber may still get off a run before the fighters get there, but they will likely kill it before any more damage is done. Or, the bomber can elect to play passively, in which case the tanks have even more time to scatter, and engage the enemy.

Edited February 13, 2021 by Grogdan

[CernoPrico 67]

Hopefully the Dev's will listen

[S Y K E S 46]

Hello, I'd like to address some of the points that I find the most important:

 

1. Promotion: Squadron battles are a great way for the player base to experience competitiveness at a lower level. New players can join an existing squadron and get guidance on how to improve and play as a team. The entry barrier is very low compared to tournaments, and I believe both systems are different, but can bring joy to the player base.
   The guys from eSportsready worked with gaijin together to promote tournaments through the twitch drop system, I'd love to see promotion for squadron battles achieve something similar and include all these players without clan tags we meet daily in random battles! 
   Squadron vehicles have been a great first step to promote people to join squadrons and I hope we can follow up on this. 
   
    
2. Airspawns: Like many people laid down earlier here, bombers have quite a big impact on a squadron battles game.
   The airspawn has sufficient altitude and speed so a bomber (prime example is the Tu-2 at 5.7-4.0) can kill 4 ground within the first 30s of the game. This usually means that in mid-to-low tiers all games are basically the same: Every team runs 3 fighters, 1 Tu-2, 3 tanks that will hold their spawn up to 5 minutes so they don't get bombed, and an R3 that gets an early cap to buy time (BofSs now runs 2 R3 and holds 2 tanks). 
   Whoever loses the air is forced to spawn tanks and will get cleaned up, the match is over. I am primarily a pilot and I find this boring, I can't imagine how boring this must be for tankers.
   Ignominius also mentioned the SB2c dominance on lower BRs: Yes this can mostly be hardcountered by sideclimbing for 4 minutes in fighters, but that's also a stale experience. 
   
   My suggestion is to give bombers a low spawn over the airfield, similar to the airspawn for example a BV238 receives when landing in Air RB. This way the bomber can be safe from enemy fighters, but doesn't have an immediate impact on the tank battle. This means tankers have a fair chance to get an advantage the start of a game, and fighters have to provide some sort of air cover for their heavy hitter. 
   
    
3. Rewards: I am confident to say, the communities and teamwork are the primary reason to play squadron battles compared to rewards. However, I would love the idea to have unique rewards for squadrons. I could see teams in the top 10 having their own decal, for example a HONK decal. Another idea could be the personal points record as a decal in form of a number: Someone managed to get 1900 points, let him showcase that on his tank or plane. While the existing reward-decals look great, I personally don't care for them and tbh never seen them used on a vehicle. 

Thanks for reading this
 

[Addamear 2]

I would sincerely appreciate that SQB performance is put on the stat card; it could be a completely different section on the player card, to separate it by game mode, like AB/RB/SRB/SB. 

This needs to be addressed, without a doubt. Rewards (or lack thereof) really give no incentive to play this game mode. Alts being abused while against TOS, leaves squadrons to either decide to risk their accounts by allowing/creating alt accounts, or actively choose to fight against other teams with a handicap in place. In the past, responses to questions about whether or not alt accounts were acceptable have been not just inconsistent, but wildly contradictory. 

I'm sure we can all say without much doubt that Gaijin has little reason to enforce the rules against alt accounts, but if Gaijin were to give a clear statement (or at minimum it's moderators) regarding the "legality" of alt accounts, then many issues disappear. This needs to be addressed. 

My hope is that we can get something productive out of this, I'm eager to hear the responses we get. 

[AIM_9Joe 83]

How to change the system to a competitive output 

A squadron consists of 128 players max.
This huge amount of players cannot be achieved for every team, as the gamemode is lacking interest gradually. Thats why we have to come across with a new system that punishes full teams and subvents teams with low player numbers. For this we have to split the potential point income of the squadron by point ranks. 

Tier 1 - Leaderboard 1-20    -     Best Point income 100% efficiency
Tier 2 - Leaderboard  21-64    -     Medium Point income 60% efficiency
Tier 3 - Leaderboard 65-128    -    Reserve Point income 20% efficiency

This idea makes huge Squadrons less popular and makes smaller Squadrons more competitive.
 
Avoiding timezone abuse
Surely it is an issue that teams try to evade strong competitors by playing in the easier timezones. Eu players are in average better than US players. Therefore it is needed to accumulate points achieved in each timezones and balance them out. Making a counter for points in each timeslots and giving efficiency percentages based on absolute points made in the end of the season will battle the issue.

 

For example:
In the end of the season all Squadrons accumulated a total of 865.000 points (100%).
EU Timeslot had made 653.000 total -> 75,49%
US Timeslot had made 212.000 total -> 24,51%

 

Squadron A has played in both timeslots and had made 44200 points
EU Timeslot 23% points made -> 11492
US Timeslot 74% points made -> 32708

US Timeslot balancing -> 32708 reduced by 25.49% = 24370,73

Total points after balance = 35.862,73

 

Squadron B has played in both timeslots and had made 43100 points
EU Timeslot 74% points made -> 31894
US Timeslot 26% points made -> 11206

US Timeslot balancing -> 11206 reduced by 25.49% = 8.349,59

Total points after balance = 40.243,59

 

This surely is a radical move, but it is not possible to battle otherwise, because points are being accumulated globally. So saying that this is not needed neglects the fact of SRE being competetive around the globe. 

 

The issue with alt accounts
I know it is against the terms of use. However we can’t deny this being issue. There is a way of fighting this issue partially. Making player ranks a playing role. 

 

For example:

Player „Patrick“ is new to the game, and currently is level 53. He is joining to play competitively, but surely lacks experience. Yet, because of his level 53 the points he makes efficiently is 53% of the possible. It gives him the incentive to play the game more to become better and maybe think about buying Premium and Premium Vehicles to grind more vehicles which he can use in higher BR’s.

 

Player „Jim“ already owns an account and has grinded a lot of vehicles. However creates a new Alt Account to boost the points of his squadron even further. The level of the account is 13, making it almost 10 times harder to achieve points for his squadron. It either gives him the reason not to play on his alt account, or he decides to buy premium and premium vehicles, as well as GE to buy himself through the tech tree and Account levels. 

 

Current and upcoming Squadron vehicles

The idea of adding squadron vehicles has a lot of potential and is a playing role for advertising the gamemode itself as well. People think of joining squadrons just to get these vehicles, however they just sit inside a squadron and do not have the incentive to actually play it. What can be done is top split SRE vehicles into two tiers. The ones that have the highest potential to be meta, have to be set to tier 2. Tier 2 vehicles you can grind only by activity inside of the SRE gamemode. I propose making it that you can only grind a max. of 2 vehicles per season. 

 

Variant 1

The RP you achieve in a SRE battle stays as usual, however the amount you get will be doubled and goes to the research of the selected vehicle. 

 

Variant 2

For each 750 points you make in SRE, you will be granted one vehicle.

 

Variant 3

A specific amount fo SRE games have to be played in order to get one vehicle. F.e. 40 games. Without any subventionism towards if you are winning the games. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by BobsCumBonus

[NeXeS-PL@psn 270]

I fully support your proposal.  There are a lot of things to improve, for example the reward system because the medal for being in the top 100 is not enough

[Jecht_Lagged 52]

On 18/02/2021 at 04:45, BobsCumBonus said:

How to change the system to a competitive output 

A squadron consists of 128 players max.
This huge amount of players cannot be achieved for every team, as the gamemode is lacking interest gradually. Thats why we have to come across with a new system that punishes full teams and subvents teams with low player numbers. For this we have to split the potential point income of the squadron by point ranks. 

Tier 1 - Leaderboard 1-20    -     Best Point income 100% efficiency
Tier 2 - Leaderboard  21-64    -     Medium Point income 60% efficiency
Tier 3 - Leaderboard 65-128    -    Reserve Point income 20% efficiency

This idea makes huge Squadrons less popular and makes smaller Squadrons more competitive.
 
Avoiding timezone abuse
Surely it is an issue that teams try to evade strong competitors by playing in the easier timezones. Eu players are in average better than US players. Therefore it is needed to accumulate points achieved in each timezones and balance them out. Making a counter for points in each timeslots and giving efficiency percentages based on absolute points made in the end of the season will battle the issue.

 

For example:
In the end of the season all Squadrons accumulated a total of 865.000 points (100%).
EU Timeslot had made 653.000 total -> 75,49%
US Timeslot had made 212.000 total -> 24,51%

 

Squadron A has played in both timeslots and had made 44200 points
EU Timeslot 23% points made -> 11492
US Timeslot 74% points made -> 32708

US Timeslot balancing -> 32708 reduced by 25.49% = 24370,73

Total points after balance = 35.862,73

 

Squadron B has played in both timeslots and had made 43100 points
EU Timeslot 74% points made -> 31894
US Timeslot 26% points made -> 11206

US Timeslot balancing -> 11206 reduced by 25.49% = 8.349,59

Total points after balance = 40.243,59

 

This surely is a radical move, but it is not possible to battle otherwise, because points are being accumulated globally. So saying that this is not needed neglects the fact of SRE being competetive around the globe. 

 

The issue with alt accounts
I know it is against the terms of use. However we can’t deny this being issue. There is a way of fighting this issue partially. Making player ranks a playing role. 

 

For example:

Player „Patrick“ is new to the game, and currently is level 53. He is joining to play competitively, but surely lacks experience. Yet, because of his level 53 the points he makes efficiently is 53% of the possible. It gives him the incentive to play the game more to become better and maybe think about buying Premium and Premium Vehicles to grind more vehicles which he can use in higher BR’s.

 

Player „Jim“ already owns an account and has grinded a lot of vehicles. However creates a new Alt Account to boost the points of his squadron even further. The level of the account is 13, making it almost 10 times harder to achieve points for his squadron. It either gives him the reason not to play on his alt account, or he decides to buy premium and premium vehicles, as well as GE to buy himself through the tech tree and Account levels. 

 

Current and upcoming Squadron vehicles

The idea of adding squadron vehicles has a lot of potential and is a playing role for advertising the gamemode itself as well. People think of joining squadrons just to get these vehicles, however they just sit inside a squadron and do not have the incentive to actually play it. What can be done is top split SRE vehicles into two tiers. The ones that have the highest potential to be meta, have to be set to tier 2. Tier 2 vehicles you can grind only by activity inside of the SRE gamemode. I propose making it that you can only grind a max. of 2 vehicles per season. 

 

Variant 1

The RP you achieve in a SRE battle stays as usual, however the amount you get will be doubled and goes to the research of the selected vehicle. 

 

Variant 2

For each 750 points you make in SRE, you will be granted one vehicle.

 

Variant 3

A specific amount fo SRE games have to be played in order to get one vehicle. F.e. 40 games. Without any subventionism towards if you are winning the games. 

I can agree with points 1 and 4 here. I however have problems with your assessment in point 2, and point 3 seems unnecessary, and ultimately not effective for countering the problem.

On the topic of "Timeslot Abuse".
For one, I don't think I quite see what you're talking about, particularly in that 'EU Slot players are better on average than US Slot'. I tend to find the opposite usually, as our experience tended to see more of the top 10 squadrons running US Slot, while EU slot tended to have more variability. Regardless, punishing squadrons for being in the American slot's preferred time zones is wrong. As one might notice, the point imbalance between US and EU slot is quite reasonable to expect; EU slot is longer than US slot, and in general EU slot is better timed than US Slot. I have guys who because they have real lives to live, cannot compete a full US slot session because it runs so late for them. Combine this with the fact that more squadrons in general are active in EU slot, either because they're the European squadrons, or just because that slot is accessible even to people who live in the Americas (I work evenings so I miss US slot entirely, but if i woke up a few hours earlier I would be able to play the whole EU slot)...

Anyways, I don't believe *punishing* squadrons for using the time slot that makes most sense for them is a good idea. We want more squadrons playing both slots, not to tell people that their efforts after their long day at work or school are somehow less valuable than the efforts of people who happen to be able to play video games during the time they view as their work day. We start making it so players make less points, we start having less players.

--
Alts and Levels.
I see this as another potential slap in the face. First there is the issue to recognize that level is based on play time and not experience. Getting to level 100 quickly is as simple as getting a few premiums in a few different countries and playing nothing else for a few weeks. Really, level 100 just means 14.4 million RP (last i checked). Tying your point gain to this arbitrary level that in all other circumstances means absolutely nothing seems rude to me. And while its an interesting take, ultimately I don't think it would do more than make people play on those alts a bit more than just a few specific BRs for SRE; in my experience the people likely to use Alts are already deeply invested in the game. Its why they invest more into it, working to make sure their efforts pay off by stacking the deck in their favor. Its maybe worth checking, but I'd expect the Alts for the top 5 squadrons to be mostly over level 25 or 50, at which point the player in control of that alt now has an effectiveness of 150% because as I said, alts tend to be used by people previously invested, and so its easy to expect their main account is in the 80 - 100 range.

As another note on this, again we want people to come to the game mode, and again telling people their efforts are worth less than someone else's for no real reason is counter productive to that goal. Further, expecting squadrons to not prioritize players of higher level is laughable. There is after all, limited Squadron Battles time, and ultimately a squadron will have every right to expect an account that has to win 5 times more battles to not be as effective an investment compared to purposeful recruitment of other high leveled players.

[AIM_9Joe 83]

16 hours ago, Jecht_Lagged said:

I can agree with points 1 and 4 here. I however have problems with your assessment in point 2, and point 3 seems unnecessary, and ultimately not effective for countering the problem.

On the topic of "Timeslot Abuse".
For one, I don't think I quite see what you're talking about, particularly in that 'EU Slot players are better on average than US Slot'. I tend to find the opposite usually, as our experience tended to see more of the top 10 squadrons running US Slot, while EU slot tended to have more variability. Regardless, punishing squadrons for being in the American slot's preferred time zones is wrong. As one might notice, the point imbalance between US and EU slot is quite reasonable to expect; EU slot is longer than US slot, and in general EU slot is better timed than US Slot. I have guys who because they have real lives to live, cannot compete a full US slot session because it runs so late for them. Combine this with the fact that more squadrons in general are active in EU slot, either because they're the European squadrons, or just because that slot is accessible even to people who live in the Americas (I work evenings so I miss US slot entirely, but if i woke up a few hours earlier I would be able to play the whole EU slot)...

Anyways, I don't believe *punishing* squadrons for using the time slot that makes most sense for them is a good idea. We want more squadrons playing both slots, not to tell people that their efforts after their long day at work or school are somehow less valuable than the efforts of people who happen to be able to play video games during the time they view as their work day. We start making it so players make less points, we start having less players.

--
Alts and Levels.
I see this as another potential slap in the face. First there is the issue to recognize that level is based on play time and not experience. Getting to level 100 quickly is as simple as getting a few premiums in a few different countries and playing nothing else for a few weeks. Really, level 100 just means 14.4 million RP (last i checked). Tying your point gain to this arbitrary level that in all other circumstances means absolutely nothing seems rude to me. And while its an interesting take, ultimately I don't think it would do more than make people play on those alts a bit more than just a few specific BRs for SRE; in my experience the people likely to use Alts are already deeply invested in the game. Its why they invest more into it, working to make sure their efforts pay off by stacking the deck in their favor. Its maybe worth checking, but I'd expect the Alts for the top 5 squadrons to be mostly over level 25 or 50, at which point the player in control of that alt now has an effectiveness of 150% because as I said, alts tend to be used by people previously invested, and so its easy to expect their main account is in the 80 - 100 range.

As another note on this, again we want people to come to the game mode, and again telling people their efforts are worth less than someone else's for no real reason is counter productive to that goal. Further, expecting squadrons to not prioritize players of higher level is laughable. There is after all, limited Squadron Battles time, and ultimately a squadron will have every right to expect an account that has to win 5 times more battles to not be as effective an investment compared to purposeful recruitment of other high leveled players.

Hey i am not sure in which teams you have been playing in, but i understand you have never belonged to the top 5 squadrons, I am speaking for changes that turn sre into a competitive layout, and obviously didnt care about the other 80% of the squadrons. I guess i must add that the whole punishing should start at a specific ceiling, lets say if you reach top 10 other rules/measurements will apply. 

 

the reason  why i said that we need to balance us timeslot with eu timeslot is exactly because of the skillgap, you can have an idea about the top squadrons if i give you some ratios to think about. Top teams with good players have a win to loose ratio of 20 to 1 in eu timeslot. AVERAGE. when points are being pushed, lets say a team of good players in one squadron wants to push 1900 or further they often go an play in us timeslot. cause the win to loose ratio over there is about 40 to 1. I will not go into discussion with this, because i have been in a top 1 squadron for the past one and a half year, so i guess i know what i am talking about. when honk was lacking us players bofss and chads ruled us timeslot, making them get very close to winning a season over them. Even at day they only brought low point players if at all. Im not gonna leave it as coincidence, cause it is a commonly used strategy. and it will be abused if no measurements are being taken.

 

Why is it so bad? Because worse teams try to play the activity game for compensating their losses, forcing better teams to play even more than needed. Competitive games should not be played down to who has more free time. 

 

alts and levels

this would be the only thing you could do to countermeasure the issue to some degree. in the end we know that gaijin wont look any further into banning alts, as in tournaments its even a deeper issue and nobody can admit it is an issue cause the alt accounts being used have achieved level 100 years ago. im open to other ideas, but this is the best i have come up so far already.

 

you see all the suggestions i proposed are in no way polished, this is why im posting it here. But if theres no competetive output towards it and no rewards that actually make sre matter. we can also just scratch everything and see it die, no matter how good you advertise it. i guess you can take that general oversimplified sentence and apply it to the base game as well. i hoped to see more responses but it seems like nobody cares that much. its just a small fraction that engages here. 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by BobsCumBonus

[reverend_CZ 21]

Hi, thank you for trying to change something for the better. For the BLOB clan, which has been here slowly for 2 years, we agree with the proposed changes.

I would like to ask if Gaijin reacted to this in any way? Is there a person appointed to deal with these issues under Gaijin?

 

[ZooJuice 12]

On 12/02/2021 at 17:12, _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

How will it do nothing?
Fighter bombers such as the SB2C make it required to take it or you are *****. Fighters cannot deal with them in time. Other examples are Arado's, Il 28's and BTD. What I think should happen is have ONLY heavy bombers get an airspawn. IE pe 8, b29 etc. Moving the airspawn back would still benefit the bombers, just to a lesser extent because now they dont have a window of time with 0 enemy air force resistance.

 

[Daool 34]

How long is Gaijin going to pretend this thread doesn't exist??

[Le_Mofoman 60]

The rewards definitely need to be improved for SRE. This is something we have been in dire need of ever since Zerbah was sent to gulag.

A player racking up 1750 points in a top 3 squadron gets around 50 GE. That is not enough for any squadron, especially considering this gamemode promotes grinding of specific META vehicles which constantly change with each rotation and updates.

 

[TarweKrekel 3]

I agree their needs to be a overhaul on Squadron battles and the bomber spam needs to stop make them spawn on the airfield just like the fighters and attackers that would make it fair because at that stage the fighters can counter them effectively and its not just arado spam everywhere...

 

[ThatAcer 544]

Any news on this @Smin1080p @Stona

[UrMumSaysHi 19]

@Smin1080p @Stona 

Are you going to have a look at this? This is your field isn`t it? 

There is quite a few things that should be fixed in SRE, also it seems to be completely unknown to many players. 

 

@zerbahperhaps?

Edited January 6, 2022 by UrMumSaysHi

[ThatAcer 544]

On 04/01/2022 at 16:44, UrMumSaysHi said:

@zerbahperhaps?

Zerbah is in Gulag you need to ping @Squier

[UrMumSaysHi 19]

@Squier gonna keep bumping this once in a while

[Grogdan 94]

Just to reiterate here, I am more than willing to act as a point of contact to facilitate any discussion. Think we all have a similar goal of improving the state of Squadron Battles to be mutually beneficial to the players and to Gaijin

[NicoBlacKnight 1]

Very good idea, Gaijin should give more attention to SQB, the community is growing bigger with it and we are waiting for upgrade !

[Dr_Henk 101]

There is a need for changes, SQB is getting a bit stale, the same meta vehicles, the same maps and no change for the past years. I would like to see a change to the bomber spawn, that would already change up the strategies and meta vehicles. Having more people know about SQB would let people to make new squadrons and communities, and thus grow the competitieve community. That would also leave a chance to maybe introduce new rewards, like the ability to win past event vehicles for certain players or achievments. I realy hope we can get a member from gaijin or the forums that can work with the squadrons to change the experience. Lets hope for the best.

[UrMumSaysHi 19]

@Squier update on if this is being read please

[CorsairJazzCat 120]

2 hours ago, UrMumSaysHi said:

@Squier update on if this is being read please

Squier no longer deals with squadron related issues. In fact, no one at gaijin is assigned to squadrons and squadron battles. and it cause more problems then solved.
For example, you might have noticed, recently anyone at gaijin has been late at publishing the next seasons schedule. Hell, 1 season they were late by 2 weeks.

 

We have no representation. pretty sure gaijin is just waiting for SQBs to die.

Edited February 8, 2022 by CorsairJazzCat

[UrMumSaysHi 19]

3 hours ago, CorsairJazzCat said:

Squier no longer deals with squadron related issues. In fact, no one at gaijin is assigned to squadrons and squadron battles. and it cause more problems then solved.
For example, you might have noticed, recently anyone at gaijin has been late at publishing the next seasons schedule. Hell, 1 season they were late by 2 weeks.

 

We have no representation. pretty sure gaijin is just waiting for SQBs to die.

Damn, good going Gaijin! 
Nice to see that that actually care about the community.

They killed the world war mode, SQB up next i guess

[Karkazz 0]

Squadron battles need to be reworked. 

This is one of the popular competitive game modes that keeps players like me and my mates in WT. It's a game mode that hasn't seen a major change in a long time. 

Requests to pay attention to the game mode periodically appear on the forum, and the developers ignore it.

It's time to get to work and make the mode great again (and modern, suitable for today's War Thunder).