i mean the bigger maps feels empty even with 16vs16
The biggest issue I see with any reduction to player count is that it increases the impact of individual player skill, and airframe selection and so would massively impact the average player, let alone the vast majority of high rank premiums.
Also it would make things much harder for the Matchmaker to maintain a 50% Win rate for good players let alone the Sweat squadron(s) that roll around in a Meta 4 stack all the time. or uptiered airframes.
At least that’s what I would see if they were to reduce things down to realistic sizes (e.g. 6vs6~ 10.vs10)
1 Like
Thats why they should split the mode and add a proper EC mode that is 16 vs 16 with PVE objectives that can net you a fair amount of points. This way newer players could spend time doing objectives.
10 vs 10 will still have its chaotic moments tho and chances for new players to 3rd party some unsuspecting pilot.
They cant design the whole gamemode for the weakest players tho. They don’t do that with ground rb. Ground rb is pretty difficult to rack up kills in. Air shouldn’t be a cake walk for new players.
8 Likes
Baiting or never played air rb?
Look up my gamertag on WT. Same as my name on here…
16 vs 16 isn’t realistic for jets at all. Realism would be 2 vs 2 or 4 vs 4 but that’s probably not practical for a permanent game mode.
Either way im advocating for a split so a proper Air RB EC mode would get 16 vs 16. Regular air rb should not be 16 vs 16 for top tier.
11 Likes
Yes 16v16 is too chaotic. All games devolve into a furball where it’s impossible to keep track of what’s going on with the amount of AA missiles flying all around you. There’s no BVR or dogfights in 16v16, which is very sad.
12 Likes
Yeah, no…
16v16 with newly added AIM-9Ms and R-73s is bad, to put it mildly
It’s too easy to get overwhelmed by RWR warnings and “keeping your head on a swivel” for incoming heatseekers.
At some point, you just won’t be able to maintain same amount of focus and you’ll bite the dust and in 16v16 battles that’s becoming much more common. I fear to think how it will be when active radar homing missiles arrive. Probably not better.
I suggest you play some top tier air RB matches, maybe then you’ll get some sense of what others are talking about because right now, what you’re saying doesn’t make much sense.
14 Likes
From my pov you are talking about the biggest advantage of small lobbies:
The smaller the lobby, the more you can influence the outcome; the bigger the lobbies, the more the result becomes a random event.
I do not see any advantage for “average” players in 16 vs 16 matches (at least in prop matches - i play nothing else) besides having more options for stupid headons or playing bait for “more experienced” pilots, allowing them cheap 3rd party kills.
As most prop 16 v 16 prop matches are decided in the first 8-12 minutes the larger lobbies just increases the disadvantage of “more experienced” pilots as it makes a difference if you play 1 vs 4 or 1 vs 6-8.
You can be skilled like hell, but you will be killed (at least in props) by numbers due to the TDM character of the mode - or you fight 1 vs 2 at high alt and 4 guys low kill ur tickets whilst you are busy.
But - with some experience, luck, “right” target selection and the right strategy you can take out your biggest threat (either best plane or pilot, usually the same guy) and can win a 1 vs 4.
I am quite sure the MM has a lot of secret “features” gaijin will not publish, but the WR issue is imho a matter of the BR setting process.
I fully agree that fighting solo a “tryhard” squad is often a “mission impossible”, but i see this not that often.
From a general pov i fully agree.
But depending on your own preferences and your personal goal whilst playing wt there are some small niches left where you can still have fun.
The main issue is (like you said) that the overwhelming majority of players sees Air RB as a tool to get somewhere instead of enjoying the game…
7 Likes
Real battles would have far more jets trying to control airspace.
It would be the maximum that each side could reasonably field.
@House_of_Schmidt @TyphoonCro
No, realism would be 64x64 on a 256x256 map, but that’s not feasible with netcode for an aviation mode.
So 16v16 is the best we’re getting at this time.
Air RB already has EC sized maps, especially the new Rocky Pillars map.
The game mode isn’t made around all players having perfect focus, it’s made around what’s feasible and believable.
I’ve exclusively played top air matches this year. It’s fun and a slight challenge, on top of being more team-based than it was previously.
If any of you want 2v2, there’s custom game modes for your less realistic desires. I should know, I’ve done it myself.
Trolling or what ? It being realistic has no bearing in this discussion
We could have 500 vs 90 and it would be a realistic scenario
At the end of the day this is not DCS or a simulation, the game has to be balanced somewhat and Gaijin themselves have admitted they are attempting to balance the game
8 Likes
i get your point, but you just have to realise that realism and historic content in this game died years ago, if you want realism there’s DCS for you, if you want WW2 historical acurracy there is IL2 Sturmovik game series for you. And to tell that you “exclusively” played top tier air matches this year, by what your stats tell me, i just can not believe you.
5 Likes
War Thunder is a war games simulator. The sooner you accept that the better it’ll be.
@POHANI_LUK
War Thunder is more realistic than DCS & IL2 Sturmovik.
Realism > historical reenactments.
I’m gonna pretend I didn’t read this…
14 Likes
“War thunder is more realistic than DCS”
I don’t what do you smoke, but damn it must be great
13 Likes
War Thunder had the following physics simulations years before DCS:
Atmospheric density [DCS fixed this in 2023], flight models on all player-controlled aircraft [not just high-fidelity aircraft], ground physics including landing physics [DCS’s grass is still mud]… to name the three off the top of my head.
@Willithepower
I play both games, that’s what I do.
In terms of gameplay, war thunder is pretty bad. a 16vs16 furball isn’t more realistic than a mission oriented sim with actual objectives, interesting PvP/ PvE and way better model accuracies.
War thunder is crippled with bugs than makes it extremely frustaring to play (missiles stop to track after an 1hr in sim)
2 Likes
DCS is also filled with bugs, F-15E was unplayable supersonic for the first month; A bug like that would be fixed in 1 - 3 days for War Thunder. An example of how bug rollouts are different between the two projects.
Furballs are player decisions, which can and do happen in DCS as well.
As for model accuracy, War Thunder’s flight models pull from the same unclassified/unrestricted flight data as DCS’s. Which is how A-10 & F-16C fly the same in both games.
No, you can’t bomb specific buildings in War Thunder.
You can’t do a bombing of Tokyo, Danzig, or London.
Not really a negative tho.
And how about CAS, we have a 35km KH29, but the render distance in WT is 14km…
War thunder engine is way inferior to DCS one on that part
4 Likes
You just said one issue yourself “furballs are player decision…”. In WT you are forced do have a furball, otherwise no people will be involved in any kind of fight after their SARH or ARH missiles go out. And if you just try to 1v1 someone there will be half of the enemy team in a minute on you as well. In DCS the case is at least somewhat different since you can exit the furball if oponnents loses sight of you
4 Likes
Render distance is much further than 14km. What’s an issue is crew skills seem to causing issues with modern systems & that may need updating.
@POHANI_LUK
That’s also an issue with DCS, if you’re not playing VR it’s a rather restricted simulation.
At least War Thunder sim mode you have space bar & intuitive mouse look. You don’t even get HOTAS analogue stick movement in DCS. You’re stuck using momentary looking or looking straight, and momentary looking off mouse is horrible.
Granted, not needed if your primary goal is to avoid dogfights.
I guess you dont know track IR exists, which are waaaaay cheaper and affordable then VR
2 Likes