Does one need to point out the obvious here?
No, since you and your buddy here are from the same squadron, its obvious youre just gonna side with him whatever he says.
6 Likes
Sir, I didn’t even know Lag would show up here, and we disagree on a lot.
I don’t even know any of his opinions on this subject.
I don’t see how pointing out the obvious in regards to the fact that IR track is an additional purchase has to do with the fact we are in the same squadron.
Sometimes @AlvisWisla says something sensible on the forum and isn’t igniting topics for no reason
1 Like
Hey, I don’t ignite topics.
I may incorrectly translate my thoughts into text that ends up unintentionally causing some issues, but never ignite.
If he said sensible thing regarding this topic in first place, we wouldn’t have this conversation.
2 Likes
An accidental arsonist is still an arsonist.
I have far too much experience doing the same as a forum gremlin elsewhere
2 Likes
All I said was DCS & War Thunder are equally sims, & both have issues that the devs are trying to figure out. I didn’t say either was bad, cause flaws don’t make a project bad.
And I illustrated the ease of getting into War Thunder over DCS.
A war games simulator being easy to get into doesn’t change that it’s a realistic sim.
Gran Turismo 5 was the most realistic racing simulator on the market for years, yet was easy to get into. As an example.
So to re-iterate: DCS is a good game, just different with different flaws.
1 Like
As usual - a quite interesting topic got derailed…
6 Likes
In a proper enduring confrontation match, with respawns, i have no problem with 16 vs 16 so long as there are multiple airfields per side and ai troops spread throught the front line.
For a quick, 5-10 minute match, having 16 vs 16 is ridiculous.
Im not sure how anyone can defend the current gamemode unless they are purely playing it for the grind. Yea for low skill players, its fine because they can get lucky launching missiles into a chaotic furball but for everyone else its aweful. Especially with this RWR Ear Assault we’re now subjected to.
One good way to measure whether Air RB is in a balanced spot is by how matches tend to end. When top tier was 12 vs 12, it was very common for the match to end with a 1 vs 1 or 1 vs 2 or 2 vs 2. Currently that rarely happens. Its always a 5 vs 1 or 8 vs 1 or worse.
In a match with less players, the match tends to conclude in a much more balanced nature.
If you’ve only been playing mostly Air RB for around year now, you’re still fairly new to the game and you didn’t get to experience the game mode much prior to this current meta so I would be more open to those of us who have been playing for around 10 years.
10 Likes
I defend the game mode cause it provides a challenge after years of matches where 1 good player can carry the entire match. The added realism provides the higher skill ceiling that top BR is supposed to require. If it’s the same skill ceiling from 1.0 to top then it’s boring.
That’s also the reason I avoid 6.0 air RB, it’s boring to play such an easy amount of players.
Ending in a 1v1 isn’t a good thing; it’s also not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just not a good thing.
I’ve been playing air RB since realistic battles became a thing since Historical battles were utterly horrible.
What you’re saying doesn’t make any sense. Gaijin themselves have said that larger teams help newer players. Especially in Air, larger teams requires far less skill than smaller teams. There’s very little skill involved in missiling someone who’s not paying attention.
16 vs 16 was added because players were asking for larger maps with larger teams. We were asking for an actual separate EC mode. Nobody wanted 16 vs 16 on City. As usual, Gaijin didn’t really listen to the playerbase and instead gave us a half-baked mode that satisfies very few.
Also dude… stop even bringing up realism here. Its irrelevant and just wrong.
First off, WT isn’t realistic…
Secondly, 16 vs 16 modern jet air vs air engagements are not realistic at all. There were air campaigns that lasted a full day, over many hours that consisted of many aircraft but 90% of those aircraft were tasked with SEAD. We don’t even really have SEAD in WT.
The largest modern air vs air engagements happened in the Iran-Iraq war and it was a 12 vs 8 air battle. Most modern air to air engagements are 2 vs 2 or 4 vs 4. If other aircraft were in the vicinity, they were conducting SEAD…not air superiority.
10 Likes
I really hope you just don’t know that you can look around with a HOTAS hat switch and aren’t just blatantly lying just to make your argument look better.
And back to the thread topic, you don’t have a leg to stand on there either. I don’t think there’s been a single case of 16 fighters being on one side of an air battle since Korea, unless you count 16 US fighters dumping on a pair of Vietnamese or Iraqi MiGs to fit that; which even then I still don’t think that many aircraft were present.
4 Likes
Yeah 16v16 is not realistic at all since all jet fighter engagements have been 2v2 - 4v4, but that’s besides the main point which is that 16v16 is too chaotic and it leads to furballs with no chance to keep track of what’s going on. Furthermore, because every match ends up in a furball, there’s no place for BVR or dogfights which means even less realism. And after the furball you always end up with one team completely destroyed and the other one with few casualties, which is very frustrating for the few surviving players on the losing team.
6 Likes
I mean i can just point to opening strike of the Iraq war where 22 F15E aircraft flew in formation doing a sortie.
The conditions are realistic in that the material is there for these large air battles.
I don’t really care for the realism part, but 16v16 works fine as long as the map isn’t layed out to attract a 16v16 knife fight, but sadly most are. Most of them will have a knife fight wether its 6v6 or 16v16 due to that.
Yes, obviously if you include the US airstrike you can easily surpass 16 aircraft, but I was only including dedicated air-to-air missions because otherwise we’d have to include Operation Linebacker and I thought that to be a little disingenuous.
Regardless it’s ridiculous that 16v16 battles are happening at top tier on maps that are sometimes cramped even for Korea era aircraft.
7 Likes
When missiles were easier to evade the bigger teams weren’t an issue in my opinion but now that we have AIM-9M and R-73, I think top tier ARB team numbers need to come down. 10v10 is probably fine.
6 Likes
In 90% of cases, the entire fight takes place within 1 minute of people meeting, sometimes you don’t even have time to click anything and the points bar drops. Whether you will be on the winning/losing team is a completely random matter. The whole gameplay is one big misunderstanding at the moment.
I’ve had a lot of battles like this since the update was released. 3 minutes? Seriously?
sad joke.
10 Likes
I don’t think I’ve ever said it on the forums, but I think that every BR above 9.0 should lose 2 player per team per session. So for example: 16v16 at 9.0, 14v14 at 10.0, 12v12 at 11.0 and 10v10 at 12.0, with 8v8s being at 13.0, which we honestly should have the current top tiers moved to now anyway.
6 Likes
They listened to us perfectly. IDK why you’re so opposed to realism just cause it’s different to the incorrect ideas of realism you have. Most people think arcade is realism & realism is arcade just cause the games attached to both aspects.
16v16 requires more awareness which is by definition added challenge.
The alleged maximum of cherry picked battles =/= the maximum possible.
@長門
Claiming that a hat switch for looking is a good idea is dishonest, which is why I didn’t use it as honesty matters more to me.
Of course you accuse DCS players of being insult… typical of those that are only here to provoke & start flame wars.
@Borkel
It is realistic, and BVR was dead long before 16v16 matches.
And not sure why any of you are bringing up historical events when it’s largely irrelevant to realism.
Realism & history are different subjects entirely.
The solution is for players to learn & get better.