[Feedback] The “Advance” Event (AB)

[Stona_WT 72,761]

From May 26th (10:00 GMT) until May 30th (7:00 GMT)

The “Advance” event is an asymmetrical mission for ground vehicles where each team has its own task: the attackers have to consecutively capture all the points on a map, while the defenders have to protect them!

Event features:

• The event takes place in the AB and RB game modes.
• When activated, each point belongs to the defending team.
• The points activate consecutively one by one: after the attackers capture the current point, the next one unlocks.
• The capture points alternate:
  • A, C and E (key points) — small, but take longer to capture.
  • B & D (interim points) — completely cover the previous respawn zone of the defenders, so their size is much larger than that of key points, but they are quicker to capture. After the interim point is captured, a new respawn point is unlocked for the attackers to push the next key point, while the previous respawn point becomes locked.
• If the final key point (E) is captured or, if all the defenders are destroyed, the attackers win.
• If the points are held throughout the mission duration or if all the attackers are destroyed, the defenders win.
• The number of spawn points for each player is limited and differs depending on their team.
• The maximum number of players in the teams are not the same.
• in the RB game mode, the ground vehicles don’t require spawn points to respawn, while the aircraft do.
• Repeated respawns that do not require backup vehicles are available.
• To participate in the event, ground vehicles with a BR of 4.7 — 5.7 are required.
• Vehicles with BR 3.7 — 5.7 can be used in this event.
• The event takes place on the “Port Novorossiysk” map.
• The event may end prematurely for technical reasons.

[qpranger 1,887]

Do these special battles go into my overall stats or are they excluded like Assault?

[Szczochacz 4]

We captured 2 enemy points, killed similar amount of tanks, yet the tickets look like this. The defending side isn't losing tickets for dying at all, just for the points we capture. We're losing tickets for every tank that we lose. What's more, I can't spawn more than 5 times, but the defenders can, what's going on? We lost that game in the end, 3 enemy points captured, 0 lost.

[Ichigo_Momomiya 10]

The good:
Really good idea, the mode highlights repair costs and is quite a fresh take on the game. Mix between SP and SL is quite excellent, makes planes feel like a reward while not sacrificing your ability to fight on the ground after, good for long matches.

Teams layout is also noteworthy as the 2 player difference will really help balance things for the attackers.

In all legit gold star for the backend and idea.

The ehhhh:

Mode is going to be difficult to balance outside of arcade, map design will become a huge part of the gameplay hence flow and sight lines will need to be considered, nations will also become hard to balance due to unique advantages of each.

Case in point being port is a highly advantageous map for germans to sit and camp with, the 5.7 max BR creates a situation where panthers and tigers can simply sit at range or in cover and engage with near impunity, such an issue probably should have been considered well ahead of time as its not going to be fun for the attackers to be slapped down while defenders farm kills.

It would likely do to study some other games in the long history of assault maps and see how they are broken down to ensure at least some kind of parity, the opposite side of port could have done well as a test environment instead due to its significantly more open design, allowing more flow and players some room to maneuver.

Cons:
As we all know teams can be a massive issue, it probably should be considered almost doubly important in this new mode due to how fickle balance can be, especially if one side has many players who leave and create terribly one sided maps, personally I would suggest a drop in/drop out system similar to sim in hopes of cutting off this issue at the head as with as many as 3 players down on the attacking side will heavily deprive the attackers of a main advantage.

Single faction teams will likely have issues adapting their vehicles to certain maps, notably for the test most factions lacked a tank that can equate to the panther while the side flank was easily locked down by 2 people, preventing major flanking actions which could change the course of the battle.

Just my 2 cents.

[qpranger 1,887]

EDIT: please see my revised opinion further down this thread.

Edited May 31, 2022 by qpranger

[SaperPL 446]

Played one match on the defending side - spawns are too far, the defending team should be closer to take positions for defense. I feel like it's each time just taken from normal map layouts which means both sides have the same distance to the point, so right away the attacking team can storm the point.

 

I feel like the point should be huge like the air domination point in air arcade or naval where it's about the presence in the area and not on the cap - the map is pretty harsh when it comes to taking defensive position on those points. I kind of lack the feeling of having to hold the point until there's one enemy tank on it and it's over.

 

Planes are especially annoying because vehicles that are more vulnerable to aircraft are usable only in first stage and then there are always some planes harassing in the air. I feel like planes shouldn't have markers of the ground vehicles until scouted. We can spawn far behind the front and the planes will keep harassing easy targets out there.

[Airvlcn 0]

I've played a few battles in this mode now.  I love the idea, rolling through the maps is a lot of fun.  I hope this remains, but I do see a few tweaks that need to be made.

 

One of the issues I think is just from the BR limit - this gives Germany, with it's Tigers and Panthers, to effectively control most of the map.  This goes for nearly every country at certain BR though, as KV series tanks are very powerful in lower BRs.  I can understand the BR limit for the static test though.

 

For game play, once the first point is taken, many from the defending team start leaving.  Every battle has ended up as handful vs a full team by the end of the game.  IMO, there should be an incentive to remain playing until all respawns are used, and further issues to balance offset teams.  I'm not sure what would keep people in the battle.  A few thoughts to support a team that is dealing with lower numbers could be a decrease in spawn (repair) cost as each member on your team leaves the battle, an increase in reward (SL/RP), etc.

 

I also share the concern about spawn locations, especially for defense team.  Once the defending team loses a spawn location, the attacking team is usually able to take the next capture point before the defense team can contest the capture.  In general, the majority of vehicles should be able to respawn and travel just past the next capture point before the attacking team could reach the edge of the capture point.

[Cest7 8]

Yo, this assault game mode is awesome. Please put it in regular rotation. thx.

[kcns 37]

1st cap is way too close to attackers than defenders. most games attackers can cap it before defenders are even close to drive it off

[GhostSoph@psn 2,213]

On 28/05/2022 at 21:11, kcns said:

1st cap is way too close to attackers than defenders. most games attackers can cap it before defenders are even close to drive it off

I believe this is by design...and makes sense.

Defender should set up a defensive line between first and last cap...hold the line and eventually counter attack if defense goes well...the first cap is supposed to be an easy early conquest for attackers...i assume.

 

Liked the mode, but had some issues (either connection or queues) playing it so didnt test it a lot...seems something that can be tweaked and placed on global rotation...and is a variation on normal play. All games i played were very even so i guess balance is reasonably adjusted...

[SaperPL 446]

4 hours ago, GhostSoph@psn said:

Liked the mode, but had some issues (either connection or queues) playing it so didnt test it a lot...seems something that can be tweaked and placed on global rotation...and is a variation on normal play. All games i played were very even so i guess balance is reasonably adjusted...

How come you're always like "everything's fine" when people are doing a constructive critique of the game?

 

I agree that first objective should fall fast, but there's a flaw in how its implemented. If attackers are closer to the objective, the defenders have no time to position themselves. Half of them dies trying to prevent the cap, the cap is taken, the respawns are too far from the front, the remaining half is killed off before that respawning half is getting there and the front line is rolling forward in a divide and conquer style because there is no fall-back time considered.

 

I believe battlefield 1 had this kind of game mod and after the sector was lost, there was a portion of time when you were informed that you need to fall back. This time is also something that should be used to make sure that defending team is regrouped and not split apart to be again half-killed before the reinforcements come.

 

The game does not support falling back so fast - most vehicles don't roll backwards as fast, you can't keep looking where you drive in reverse and also you don't want to retreat by turning your back at the enemies. And if you go back by reversing, of course the front coming towards you will be faster. This is a snowballing effect where leftovers that survived are killed off by overwhelming/overmatching enemy forces, but because the front keeps pushing their way, if they die, they are again too far to help the ones that are at the front. And it keeps happening over and over again. There need to be separate timeframe for retreat and regroup around a new defensive position around the next objective. It could be made like that around the first objective as well and it would be balanced by number of players, attackers spawn distance etc.

 

But it's definitely nothing near being fine. Add planes and bombers being there all the time in the mission as well...

[kcns 37]

5 hours ago, GhostSoph@psn said:

I believe this is by design...and makes sense.

Defender should set up a defensive line between first and last cap...hold the line and eventually counter attack if defense goes well...the first cap is supposed to be an easy early conquest for attackers...i assume.

this is not how it works in any game with a similar 'push' mode. if the defenders dont really have any chance at defending the first cap, what is the point of even having it?

[GhostSoph@psn 2,213]

6 hours ago, SaperPL said:

How come you're always like "everything's fine" when people are doing a constructive critique of the game?

Two reasons...

1) There are already a lot of people saying "everything is wrong"...and i actually like the game...so i take the "light side".

2) I have some "topics" where i go to the "dark side"...as examples i think SL costs are excessive after a certain BR, that we have too many prototypes...and sometimes i think light vehicles are too strong, compared with heavier ones...

 

6 hours ago, SaperPL said:

I agree that first objective should fall fast, but there's a flaw in how its implemented. If attackers are closer to the objective, the defenders have no time to position themselves. Half of them dies trying to prevent the cap, the cap is taken, the respawns are too far from the front

I may have misplayed...i had lots connections issues. The way i understood it, the first objective was supposed to fall fast...the fight would then heat up around 2nd and 3rd, and here the defenders would have the advantage as the attackers were pressed to move on. On one of the matches the defenders did very well and the attackers had to go back to the first as the defenders counter-attacked...

 

Another issue i have with WT is the lack of variety...so i would like to have a NEW MODE...it gets a bit boring to play the same three points all the time...

 

I would rather have the flaw (and hopefully have it fixed later) than have the mode removed due to criticism...like it happened with the convoys in Naval...

 

See...you are making me turn to the dark side now

[SaperPL 446]

10 hours ago, GhostSoph@psn said:

I would rather have the flaw (and hopefully have it fixed later) than have the mode removed due to criticism...like it happened with the convoys in Naval...

 

The whole point of this thread is to give feedback on the mode. Not to be a yes-man and be like "give it to us now" just to complain later. The time fore feedback and improvements is now as it's in devs focus since they are asking for feedback.

The worst thing which could happen is to not give a proper feedback, have it implemented and then start complaining after it's introduced when the devs focus is already somewhere else and the mode is dead on arrival.

[qpranger 1,887]

I am pleased to admit that my initial negative impression of the Advance game mode has proved largely wrong. Granted, the spawn point distances may need some tweaking, but generally the flow of the battle is much less influenced by that factor than it is by the average IQ of both teams. And that is beyond Gaijin's control, so...

Anyway, when migrating to War Thunder from, ahem, the other tank game, I only genuinely missed War Thunder having an equivalent of the Frontline mode that was so brilliantly designed and developed for Wargaming by Bongfish a few years ago. I really enjoyed playing Frontline, always hoping Gaijin might develop something like this eventually, and my prayers appear to have been answered. I look forward to Advance becoming a very regular event!

[Stona_WT 72,761]

Thank you for all the feedback!