Alright, now imagine Call of Duty but your guns do full damage to AI bots but half damage to players.
The game implements vehicles that rely on specific doctrine and tactics but then makes the use of those impossible. That’s what has everyone bothered. I WANT to have a fun time bombing bases, I actually think it can be interesting. I WANT to attack ground and sea targets, but I can’t actually do it because the game is made to make the life of a Bomber or Strike Aircraft difficult.
On the Russian dev stream yesterday BVV_d said they are thinking about making a new mode (mission??) where those AI radar and SAM units from the trailer will be used.
About a week after the major update drops I’ll make a few new polls regarding team sizes, ARHs, AI units and whatever else comes to mind. Let’s wait and see how they are on the live server.
I greatly appreciate your post, man. My ten cents on this topic are as follows.
The Elephant In The Room - Objective Structure of Air RB:
The Problem:
Nearly every problem pertaining to attackers, bombers, and multirole fighters traces back to the objectives of the game mode, or more precisely the win conditions. Currently, any of the three objectives can end the round on its own, and since Air PvP is the easiest/fastest to achieve, the fighters doing their job means that purebred CAS, purebred bombers, and multirole fighters equipped with ordinance become unable to do theirs, turning all into dead weight “taking up fighter team slots.”
Arguments on “which plane class should matter most” have gone on for years, yes even longer than debates on CAS in Combined Arms game modes have. If the game were to defer to reality, CAS and bombers would matter first and foremost with fighters as an enabler. But as a large portion of the playerbase mains fighters, going this route in Air RB is not realistic to implement(pun intended).
The Solution:
Therefore, to put down such arguments now and forever, and because factions of the playerbase cannot agree which objective should “reign supreme,” my answer is that none of them should.
Instead, each objective should bleed at most 50% of the ticket bar. Thus, complete any 2 of 3 to win each match, which will be in 99.99% of cases PvP + CAS & Bombing.
This has an added bonus of solving most issues regarding airbase camping. Now, there is no need to chase someone to their runway to end the round, and someone trying to abuse base AAA to win the round for them will no longer be able to, as PvP alone will no longer auto-end the round.
Matchmaking/Team Composition:
The Problem:
Currently, the matchmaker operates under an “anything goes” mentality when putting teams together, other than the 4-bomber limit that became redundant upon removing the airfield destruction win condition from all but the lowest tier matches. This leads to a lot of headaches between factions of the community, usually fighter mains complaining their team is overstuffed with bombers (Ju-288C) or attackers (many examples) which means the match is lost before anyone takes off.
The Solution:
The solution I always thought of long ago for this, ever since the 4-bomber limit was introduced, was to separate fighter and non-fighter matchmaking. Instead of up to 16 “anything goes” slots, a team would have 10 fighter-exclusive slots and 6 non-fighter exclusive slots.
It goes without saying that numbers would scale down proportionately for smaller team sizes, or up for 64-player RB EC (if we ever see that again).
Planes Used Outside Their Intended Role And Multiroles:
The Problem:
Fighters cutting grass. Bombers roleplaying AC-130s. Attackers headoning fighters. Helldivers, B7A2s, Stukas, Dauntlesses, PV-2Ds, B-25s, and others abusing airspawns to hunt other bombers or dunk on climbing fighters low on energy. There have been too many topics on this matter. Especially about jet bombers with cannon armaments, particularly the R2Y2s whose stats are still too high from previously having bomber airspawns years ago.
People will behave how they want, but they can be coerced via changing reward payouts. Recently, TheEuropeanCanadian suggested this very concept. My version of it would be as follows:
Any plane killing targets within its intended role gets bonus (x10) rewards. Any plane killing targets outside its chosen role gets severely reduced rewards (x0.1). Thus, you are free to do what you please if the need arises, but do not expect to make bank.
Red Enemy Markers, Shared Spotting, Sounds, and Dots:
The Problem:
Red markers on enemies have been around since the dawn of the game, as Air RB is the oldest mode in the game bar none. Their intended point is to make spotting opponents easier, however in practice this greatly distorts how planes are used, leading to nonsensical BR placements such as the F4U-1A at 2.7 and the A6M5 Ko at 5.3. A plane reliant on high-speed diving passes can be spotted via red markers well before it gets within firing range, and thus its better-maneuvering target can preemptively dodge endlessly due to always knowing where the opponent is coming from. As the average player is impatient, this leads to the speed-reliant plane getting lower K/D and lower WR than a better-turning one.
The same disparity occurs regarding fast-climbing fighters (Bf-109s, I-185s, J2Ms, or Spitfires) vs slow-climbing ones (F4U-1s, F6Fs, P-47s). A couple fast-climbers get seen by the enemy team below them very easily, and each individual then thinks “I don’t want to be his first target, so I’ll dive away.” Then there are less people up at altitude to contest the guys already up there, leading to herd mentality of everyone diving.
Another disparity comes from weapon damage output. Due to spotting, surprise is more difficult to achieve, meaning you get less opportunity to set up proper passes on opponents. This places much greater emphasis on one-second burst mass. Planes which do not have large amounts of potent cannons (early .50cals, early Spitfires/Typhoons, many early Japanese props) or weak cannons (anything with Type 99 Model 1, Ho-3, or Ho-5 cannons) see their stats depressed by guns letting the pilots down when they need them not to.
Compounding this problem is shared spotting. When one opponent or even AI attacker comes within 5-7km of you, the whole enemy team sees, and then someone will make it their business to chase you to the ends of the earth regardless of how relevant your vehicle is to winning the match, b/c “muh easy kill.” The game engine will render someone up to 36km away via shared spotting. And if that’s a poor British bomber with only 7.7mm defensive guns…
Sounds further complicate things, where you can sometimes hear an opponent’s plane considerably before they get into guaranteed kill range. This is a problem moreso for specific planes than others, but in all cases it makes absolutely no sense, as real pilots would be near-deafened by their own engines until the advent of the jet age.
The ability to maneuver the plane while also looking behind you via camera controls complicates things even more. This again makes surprise more difficult still to achieve, favoring maneuverability that much more, especially roll rate.
Hence, all this is why planes with high climb rate, great maneuverability, decent to good roll, and powerful guns like the G.56, Re-2005 s0, or Ki-84 Hei sit so high in BR.
Skill floor is a common reason why markers are seemingly “essential,” but if that were true, then tanks and ships would also have them, at least at the lowest BRs in Realistic too.
Dot-spotting is often brought up as the main reason why markers cannot be changed much despite their known drawbacks. Aircraft dots render quite easily from long range, particularly on ULQ graphic settings. Yet higher graphics make dots harder to see, giving serious advantages to people with larger monitors. Plane dots seem to render with a certain minimum number of pixels regardless of graphic settings.
AI Ground Unit models being overly-simplistic is another reason in defense of markers. Some of them date back to Wings of Prey, and look the same whether they are destroyed or not. Without markers, it can be hard to tell if that Light Pillbox is alive or already dead.
The Solution:
Remove red markers from all enemy units, as well as the flashing arrows at the screen edge and enemy markers on the minimap. The general location of ground units should be marked on the full-size map, but nothing specific. They cause more problems than they are worth.
Regarding sounds, make sounds drop off far more over distance, so that you can only hear a plane coming if they’re already within kill range (300m or so).
To solve the dot spotting dilemmas, implement what DCS did to solve the same problem - Universal Dot Scaling. If ULQ uses say 4 pixels to render a dot, then higher graphic settings should use more pixels to fill the same corresponding screen area.
AI Ground Units, especially the oldschool Air AI, need updated models. It should be obvious from considerable distance away if a ground unit is dead or alive, like it already is with player tank/ship unit models.
Airbase AAA and Midmap AAA:
The Problem:
AAA is coded as a “sphere of denial” that gradually damages your plane when you are in range, without visual notification whether you are being shot at until its too late. This is a very outdated system, and is abused by many people to pad K/D ratios, especially on runways.
Similarly strong AAA was added to small bombing targets to try and dissuade attackers or fighter-bombers from hitting bomb targets in high BR Air RB. It was also added to Sim EC to attempt dealing with the zomber plague there.
In both cases, it will routinely snipe people up to 3.5km away, well beyond aircraft weapon range until missiles become a thing.
On some maps, particularly Air RB Naval maps, ground units nowhere near bomb points or airfields (especially Cargo Ships) have absurdly strong AAA which makes attacking them suicide.
The Solution:
Remove the old system of AAA altogether, and replace it with something based more on how it works in higher ranks. It has to physically hit you to hurt you, not simply you existing in its detection range. This should also apply to how AI ground/naval units shoot at you.
Aircraft Weapon Damage Output:
This partly crosses over into the realms of Combined Ground and Combined Naval, moreso the former since the number of maps featuring player tank unit models for AI ground units is increasing steadily.
The Problems:
Certain weapons are seemingly arbitrarily able to destroy the old AI tanks and pillboxes easily, while others either require absurd amounts of ammo or can’t scratch them altogether:
The “winners” in this system are 20mm M2/M3, Hispano, and Vya-23 cannons. These melt AI tanks and Light Pillboxes with total ease. One IL-2 can kill sometimes half a map’s worth by itself on one ammo load.
12.7mm M2/M3 Brownings easily shred Light Pillboxes, but do not scratch Medium or Heavy tanks. Long ago they were able to kill the former from the rear only. 12.7mm Breda-SAFAT MGs, 20mm Ho-5s, 20mm Type 99s (both) and ShVAKs can kill Light Pillboxes with considerable difficulty, and do nothing to tanks other than sometimes Light Tanks. 15mm MG151/15s cannot reliably kill either despite having HVAP rounds specifically designed for that purpose. Other cannons can’t scratch any hardened ground unit whatsoever.
It gets weirder still with larger-caliber guns:
30mm MK103 AP-I rounds cannot touch AI Medium Tanks reliably at all. HVAP requires usually quite a few shots to kill. Meanwhile, 37mm rounds from the Yak-9T and 37mm HVAP from the Duck or Stuka one-tap said AI tanks. Then the AP-I rounds for the US 37mm M4/M10 cannons can’t scratch either tanks or Light Pillboxes reliably. Then Japanese and Italian 37mm armor-piercing rounds kill Light Tanks, but can barely hurt Medium Tanks. Light Pillboxes are almost indestructible. 45mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 102mm cannons require the same number of hits to kill Light Pillboxes reliably as do the working 37mm guns which usually have more ammo or better platforms.
Then, most air-to-air weapons work reliably, and the few that do not are either very low in BR or not a mainstay of their respective tech tree. Hispano SAP rounds are getting their explosive power quadrupled next update (2.37). This leaves just Type 99 Model 1 and Ho-5 cannons as the sole outliers.
The Solution:
These old units either need total retirement for updated models, or across-the-board standardization of what can and cannot kill them. In some cases, long-since-redundant nerfs to certain weapons need to be lifted (MK103 HVAP, MG151/15 HVAP), while in others, missing ammunition types need to be added (for example, MG151/20 had HVAP rounds developed for use on the Hs-129B-2).
30-37mm weapons should reliably kill hardened units in no more than 3 penetrating shots, 1 shot per Light/Medium Tank, 2 per Heavy Tank, and 3 per Light Pillbox.
45mm and larger weapons should one-tap any hardened ground unit, since other than the Yak-9K, most platforms with such weapons are bricks totally incapable of defending themselves. If they can’t even reliably do their intended job, they’re utterly worthless in all modes. These should also be able to kill Heavy Pillboxes in 3-5 shots, and sink AI ships in a handful of direct hits near the water line.
The overtiered A6M3 and A6M3 Mod.22 need serious BR decreases to where weak guns are more appropriate. The J2M3, J2M4, and J2M5 (tree) need modifications to switch the outer Model 1 cannons for Model 2s, as was done late-war.
Ho-5s are missing scaled-up versions of the fuseless explosive rounds seen on 12.7mm Ho-103s. They are also missing copied versions of German 20mm mine-shot (yes I am serious, there is a post on the old forum about it).
Map Design:
The Problem:
To be brief, maps are either 1) too small or 2) too large, and in both cases generally cram all ground units into a single postal code. Thus everyone clusters together in one chaotic mess, making attackers and tactical bombers trying to do their jobs only that much more suicidal one-way trips back to hangar.
The Solution:
The solution here is to spread the units out into 3-6 groups spaced well apart from one another, so that hairballs are smaller when they form at all. A good model to build upon is the layout of the [Air Battle] France 1944, [Air Battle] Hurtgen - Second Battle, and [Air Battle] Moscow 1941, which all feature three groups of static targets per side plus three moving tank columns. Spacing should increase with BR to account for longer and longer weapon ranges.
I believe that covers everything with the mode that comes to mind from nearly a decade playing.
Thank you a lot for your feedback! Glad that someone who is playing since the beginning chimed in.
I will have to read this a few more times to take it in.
I have just one question for now.
How would PVP not end the round if all players from one team are dead?
I had some games on the dev servers with half teams with bot (6/8 vs 6/8 real players) it’s so much more enjoyable, and the games are not like 4 minutes long
I agree with some of your ideas, but not all
How would this apply to bombers who shoot down aircraft? They get nearly no reward for defending themselves? There’s also issues where someone would be forced to shoot down aircraft in an attacker in order to win or protect a friendly. There’s also issues with certain planes that are classified as attackers, despite being very good fighters at their BR, such as the F-84B and G. It nerfs rewards for contributing to your team, which is bad.
I completely disagree with removing enemy markers. It would make finding aircraft too difficult and annoying. It would not benefit the game in any way, either.
I’ve only been playing since 2015, which is a good few years since the dawn of the game in 2012.
Simple - just disable the “no active players left on hostile team” ticket bleed. There have been occasions after updates where it bugged out and didn’t trigger before. Game did not implode the moment the last player died, rather people just swept up the remaining ground units to end the round instead.
Also the recent Guardian Angel event to escort B-17s on a bombing mission doesn’t end until the bombers complete their objective, even if all German interceptors are shot down.
The main job of ground attackers and bombers is not Air PvP, thus any option to end the round solely by Air PvP means these classes of planes can literally never be relevant in Air RB.
I feel much the same way about attackers being able to win the game solely by themselves if left unattended, and about the old bomber airfield destruction automatic ticket bleed still present in very low BR maps.
None of those are healthy for the game long-term.
That is the point. Bombers and attackers going gunship mode, even in self-defense, would not earn much. Their main job is not to be gunships (outside odd cases like the YB-40 which we don’t even have yet). Their main job would pay well enough to more than compensate for reductions elsewhere.
This is intended. Fighters alone cannot be the sole thing that matters in the game mode, or the game mode can never evolve beyond the current “big dumb deathmatch” setup.
Because Fighters are currently the “king of the hill” in the mode, they must under no uncertain terms give up some of their importance to make room for nonfighters to matter in a healthy manner.
Hence why I propose altering ticket losses so that each objective only knocks out 50% of the tickets when fully completed. Then, fighters get to finish their dogfights and have their fun without depriving attackers and bombers of the option to finish their objectives, too. And vice versa. This does not directly harm fighter players in any way, except for the handful who think themselves too good for grass-cutting once in a while (the xBromanx’s and the UnknownDistance’s of the community).
If a fighter-exclusive player has no interest in cutting grass after the last player and AI planes are all shot down, they can go land at the nearest runway and leave the round.
In the rare circumstance they are the sole person left in the round, well they would have no choice but to do some grass-cutting to finish things off.
People would have to use their eyes and brains to spot people, and not have the computer do 90% of the work for them. Slow-climbing planes reliant on speed-centric tactics would become much more valuable. Bombers, attackers, and multirole fighters would no longer be instantly swarmed the moment they fly within 5km of anything.
If you want red enemy markers, go to Arcade. The game mode cannot evolve in a meaningful way to truly fit all of the planes it has if it tries to retain arcadey conveniences.
And it goes without saying that the Avenger and Blind Hunt orders would be non-functional in the mode like they are in Combined Ground/Combined Naval.
With universal dot scaling, you really wouldn’t need red markers to spot people anymore. Friendlies would still be marked out to 36km distance.
I think your ideas aren’t bad, but reducing the rewards does not make the game better in any way at all.
I am all for increasing rewards for planes doing what they were meant to do, but rewards should never be reduced under any circumstances.
A player should not be forced to get 1/100th of the rewards in order to win a match just because they chose the wrong plane.
Reducing rewards is never the right thing to do, and it makes me angry that people genuinely believe that it is.
Edit: What you want is something like this, Specific RP/SL bonuses for each vehicle type. This rewards players for doing intended actions, but it doesn’t punish players for doing other acctions.
The point here is to curb abusive play with various machines.
Fighters should not be cutting grass if they queue as fighters and take up fighter team slots. Bombers and attackers should not be abusing their airspawns to hunt climbing fighters (funny how Helldivers, B7A2s, and Dauntlesses get nowhere near the hate R2Y2s once did, even though they are leagues more common).
The intent is to make off-target use of machines unprofitable, and thereby curb the use of said machines in such a manner.
Plus, a reshuffling of rewards rather than a straight buff is more likely to be implemented, since while we all would prefer lessening of “the grind,” that goes contrary to snail’s business model.
I do not like bombers going gunship mode, funny as it may occasionally be, it is terrible for long-term game health. I do not like naval bombers abusing airspawns to go kill other bombers or even fighters. I do not like attackers abusing airspawns to kill other attackers or fighters. And while I personally may enjoy using multirole fighters for more than just air-to-air, I have played long enough to recognize that fighters cutting grass deprives purpose-built attackers of their job in the exact same way bomb truck fighters deprive dedicated bombers of their objective.
Thus, some kind of punishment to rein in that behavior is necessary.
I do believe that a reclassification of most planes ingame is necessary, so that if you want to use a multirole plane for several jobs in a match, you can go do so. Here’s how it would work:
Every plane has certain assigned jobs it can do in Air RB. When you hit “To Battle!” you get a small pop-up asking you to pick a given role to queue in. You then get that role’s set of reward bonuses and maluses.
Once the match starts, and after players inevitably get shot down, thereby opening up team slots in given tasks, you can proceed to land on your runway, J out in the same way as you would when changing ordinance loadouts, and then get the option to change your role, thereby getting that new role’s reward bonuses and maluses.
Available Roles would be:
If a P-47D with options for Fighter, Bomber Hunter, and Attacker wants to do ground attack, it still can. It would be queued as an Attacker and not take up a Fighter team slot.
If a Helldiver wanted to be a Fighter, it would queue as a Fighter, and not take up a non-fighter team slot.
Does this make more sense?
And that can be fixed somewhat by increasing rewards for players doing the correct task.
Rewards should never be reduced under any circumstances.
There are better ways to make players use planes for the intended purpose. Reducing rewards helps nobody. Your idea punishes players for playing the game in a way you don’t approve of. This is bad.
That is why a combination of ingenuitive, dynamic map, objective and gameplay design, a long maximum match time (2 hours) while introducting a real matchmaker lobby system (think Hell Let Loose) is the direction the game needs to move. A player could either A) wait for a new lobby to fill for a game to start or B) jump into an existing match.
ARB is currently just Live. Die. Repeat. on maps and objectives built over 10 years ago primarily for prop diriven aircraft.
I have read your post a few more times now.
I actually don’t mind this at all, but this just turns the match into PvE for the winning team, and I don’t think Gaijin will allow increased rewards.
But I am also unsure how much it would help make bombers and strike aircraft more playable and more useful. This only helps them if their teams wins, and most such aircraft are not that great at fighting. I think this again devolves into people only playing fighters, and if they win they would go back to base to get some ground pounding weapons. I don’t think a lot of “fighter mains” would be to happy to be forced into ground pounding after “winning”.
I really hate this. Imagine you are a strike aircraft or a bomber defending yourself and take down two enemy planes only to be shot down by a third. Not not only do you not get to do your mission, you get no rewards from taking down 2 planes.
I think this is the wrong way to go for fixing this issue.
Our post focues more on top tier, I haven’t thought about low tier planes at all to be honest.
I agree with this. Evasive maneuvers should help you stay alive under AA fire. For AF AA I say put bigger guns and more of them, so that it’s still deadly.
This more seems like a technical issue than a game design one.
We came to pretty similar conclusion as well. I agree with this.
A lot of top tier planes are fighters even though they can do ground pound just as well. Our whole post revolves around top tier. Some of your ideas fit it, but also a lot of them don’t.
We never wanted to force anyone into any specific playstyle.
You are trying to forcefully cram a solution into the current ARB, which we have proven doesn’t work. Why do you think these airspawns need to stay? People need to open their minds more, instead of going “This won’t work in current ARB”. Yes, of course it won’t, that’s why we are trying to change it.
No more negative feedback loops, we have enough of those in War Thunder.
“All plans got out the windows after you merge”, or something like that.
And yet economy updates will sometimes crater earning potential on a given plane to effectively yield the same result.
And no, there really isn’t a “better” way to encourage someone to use their plane according to its appropriate job. The job of a naval bomber is to bomb ships and/or ground targets, not kill planes. The job of a land-based ground attacker is to deal with tank columns and fortifications, not kill planes. The job of a heavy bomber is to stay generally high up and drop on runways or other large targets, not try bombing pillboxes or gunshipping planes. The job of a fighter is to kill enemy fighters so more specialized craft can survive. The job of a bomber killer is to kill heavily-armored planes such as bombers and/or attackers.
Under the system I proposed, you would earn ten times current rewards for the simple job of doing what your plane is supposed to do.
As far as I am concerned, any resistance to the idea implies you enjoy abusing airspawns to hunt climbing fighters, and therefore are the very abuse needing to be culled.
Multirole jets in high tiers are such a xxxxshow partially because of dedicated ground attack planes armed with advanced missiles using those missiles to kill Korea-era jets with no countermeasures at all. Such an issue would be far less of a problem under the reward structure I propose, because such unintended behavior would no longer pay enough to be worth doing.
Now go convince Ion_Protogen why his proposal of just bonuses for doing a plane’s intended job will never fly, using this exact same reasoning.
And this I frankly do not mind one bit. As long as it is possible to win games without nonfighter input, nonfighters will always only ever be able to be either 1) useless or 2) abuseable. With no ability to be anything in between.
And yet I cannot think of any other way to seriously curb such abusive behavior.
Ground attack planes are supposed to kill ground units, not hunt planes. Hunting planes is a fighter’s job.
Bombers are not supposed to roleplay AC-130s and gunship planes. Hunting planes is a fighter’s job.
Yes, it will remove some of the humor in the situations where you defend yourself using your attacker or bomber, but I am willing to sacrifice that if it means curbing all forms of airspawn abuse, gunshipping, and fighters doing attackers/bombers’ job better than dedicated attackers/bombers. I am proposing this knowing full well it will hurt ME as well.
You just said earlier how snail would likely never approve of just a reward increase for doing your plane’s correct job, so by all means please tell me what other options there even are here?
Top tier is in many cases problematic due to unresolved years-long headaches that began in low tiers.
The proposed combination of queueing as a given job in whatever plane suits your fancy and getting the appropriate set of reward bonuses and maluses would quite handily curb abuse of A-10s and Su-25s with all-aspect missiles dunking on fighters with no countermeasures.
And yet the desire to be as hands-off with playstyle is sadly the source of all the abuse. If “anything goes,” then people will gravitate towards what pays the most and is the most entertaining. The intent of both a large bonus for doing your plane’s intended job and a large penalty to current rewards for doing off-target jobs is meant to make off-target work purposefully so unprofitable that nobody will bother.
Go look up the definition of “freedumb” on Urban Dictionary. It’s being so hostile to anything that appears to encroach on your own personal choice that you forget your given choice is harmful to everyone else.
The point is to make such behavior permanently so unprofitable nobody will ever bother regardless of what fancy new planes get added in the future.
Changing the airspawn of one or three planes only fixes those one or three planes.
Upending rewards for all plane classes fixes the problem for good.
And yet snail is more likely to approve a reward redistribution as opposed to a straight reward increase, because grind is their business model. Would we all love to earn more of everything without cost? Of course. But the game currently will never work that way until the day when the official servers die and its rebooted on private ones.
If a fighter pilot manages to defeat the final opponent, but is too damaged to safely land, that is a pyrrhic victory.
You would also get 1 tenth the rewards if you even think about contributing to your team in an alternative way. I think rewarding players for doing actions is good, but punishing them for not doing the right actions is bad.
Take this hypothetical scenario: A team has eliminated all ground targets in the match. That team’s last plane alive is a bomber. The other team has 2 fighters that are alive, who need to kill the bomber to win. If the bomber shoots the fighters down, it gets virtually 0 rewards for that action, despite winning the match, and immensely contributing to their team.
Or why should a lone fighter pilot be forced to ground pound and get 0 rewards in order to win a match?
Why should I be forced to play an attacker as an attacker, despite it being a capable fighter plane?
What is your obsession with reducing rewards??? Any reward reductions are bad. End of story. If you keep saying they are good, you are wrong.
I am not fully against the rest of your ideas. I just think this one in particular is terrible.
Of course, Gaijin would reduce the rewards. However, that also harms the players. Are you really taking a corpos side on something like this?
Punishment harms the game and its players. Rewards benefit the game and it’s players. Rewards shouldn’t be culled because a plane isn’t doing what it was designed to do in a video game.
I am done with this conversation. If you think culling rewards is a good thing, please stop playing War Thunder.
I would rather see a reward reshuffling that actually gets implemented than be stuck in wishful thinking for just a bonus.
We’ve seen reward reshuffling actually get implemented with altering win/loss multipliers, and regular global economy multipliers on specific vehicles.
How is giving an additional multiplier based on the job you do really any different than all of those existing cases?
Because killing planes is not the job of a heavy bomber. Sure, it can, but that is not what it was built to do. Is it funny? Yes.
But hard lines must be drawn when what a person finds funny actively harms literally everyone else. I lump all forms of airspawn abuse, intentional gunshipping, and fighters doing attackers/bombers’ job under the same category of unintended play.
Assuming the fighter pilot is the last guy alive on both teams (an absolute rarity), there would be open attacker slots on his team. He would need to go land at the nearest runway and J out to the loadout select screen to switch his given set of reward multipliers to the chosen role.
Thus there would be a way to make occasions like that less problematic, while still making sure all forms of airspawn cheese, fighters queuing as fighters only to cut grass/bomb truck, and bombers/heavy attackers gunshipping people stays gone.
If you’re in a plane whose only role is Fighter, well then there isn’t much to be done. You just deal with it and move on to next round.
Culling rewards for play your plane isn’t intended to do in the first place is a net benefit to all of us as soon as you look beyond your preferences.
I would love an additional modifier, but there shouldn’t be any reductions.
But they are able to. A heavy bomber has guns on it for a reason. By using them, you are protecting yourself so you can do what you were meant to do.
If it was unintended, why is it allowed and possible? Gunshipping on bombers never works. Some fighters absolutely can play the role of an attacker, and vice versa.
Needlessly complicated, and doesn’t fix anything wrong with the game.
Culling rewards is bad no matter what. Why should a bomber be forced to earn pennies because it defended itself on it’s way to do what it was meant to do.
So I am forced to earn nearly nothing because I chose the wrong plane? What kinda weird logic is that?
You are advocating for the game to be made 10x worse and 10x more toxic.
And we all would love a nice bonus for no cost, but that is just wishful thinking.
If given the choice between a wishful thinking bonus that never gets implemented and a reward reshuffling based on what your plane does which actually does get implemented, I will always choose the latter even though I’m fully aware it will make funny abusive play permanently unprofitable.
Able to =/= Should. Top tiers are a mess due to fighters being bomb trucks and Warthogs slinging all-aspects at flare-less fighters. Fundamentally its the same problem - unintended usage of planes pays too much, intended usage pays too little.
And in multirole cases like that, your fighter can queue as an attacker and not take up a fighter team slot. Thus you still can be an attacker if you want, just not simultaneously while being a fighter.
The point is to allow changing multipliers in those oddball long games while ensuring off-target usage of planes remains intentionally so unprofitable people no longer use the machines in such a manner.
Because that bomber is not meant to shoot down planes. Its job first and foremost is to haul ordinance.
Got any other ideas which stand an actual chance of being implemented to make people stop using attackers or bombers to intentionally hunt fighters? Or stopping fighters grass-cutting when there are plenty of attackers already on their team to do that job? Or stopping fighters from bomb-trucking when bombers are already present on their team?
The point is to ensure such abusive play of given aircraft types is solved permanently no matter what gets added in the future.
Did he really say this? This would be great news!