Which missiles?
It was all missiles in terms of manuverability, but the ATGM carriers got hit hardest by the “swing” that missiles do now in SACLOS platforms.
1 Like
This is all such a good idea…
cant wait for gaijin to do absolutely nothing :,)
2 Likes
This makes zero sense at all.
If youre playing fighter, why bother with bombs/rockets? And we pick these planes because we can.
Doesnt matter, both play exactly the same way. Yeah sure, they have a difference in engine, but it doesnt matter too much.
Still not a good reason to change them to attackers. We used to have sea maps but i have no clue where those are now…
My reason lies with destroying all the enemy aircraft is the best route to win a game. I also should not have to go groundpound after shooting all my enemies down. It is a massive waste of time, boring and means essentially nothing when you have already won.
Again, no. There are no “unfair advantages,” and someone using their C key will get the most out of it.
Again, for just being able to shoot bots uninterrupted…
Disagree. Explain this in jets terms too please! we have devolved into props at this point. Maybe you should to try all these kinds of aircraft, as i had no issue even with ones that fly like buses.
No, its the same reason there are other aircraft higher than similar in other nations. Italy has less players, and naturally this means the average skill is higher. Players perform better, moving the aircraft up. Some examples: CL-13 Mk.4, G.91YS, (formerly) Mustang Mk.1, Spitfire F.24 and J6K1 still being above P-51H, F-15A still being 12.3 because US mains got clapped.
No, because your logic is stupid. A torpedo-bomber is still a bomber. You cannot take that away just because we are over land.
“Situational awareness is not fair!” - inexperienced pilot, probably
I never claimed it essential as far as i can remember. All i said was that the bombers/groundpounders are deadweight and only are usable as bait. Go look at high tier jets, or 10.0+ as i should say. Lots of people, i mean LOTS playing perfectly good fighters, like Kfir, F-104S, F-4 all trucking bases, dying and being completely useless as teammates. If you want “escorting” then there is always the option of just ignoring the fighters and killing attacker/bomber.
And those that dont? Without markers they go down in BR. Lets see some examples. A-10 Late? 4x AIM-9L, trash FM, no radar equipment. want that a 9.3 again? Didnt think so. F-104S ASA? an RWR that tells you nothing, an inconsistent, weak, unreliable radar, 4x AIM-9L. Watch it go to 10.3.
I already showed escorts arent useful, as the enemy would probably rather get a free kill on the attacker and die, by ignoring the fighter.
Fighters winning by killing all enemy aircraft is fine. Its why most people even bother getting good.
I need not explain again in this post. You are completely wrong.
Passively*
Again. You are wrong. Why are you so stuck to this?
welcome to the high threat environment of an air battle. I expect players to die at some point.
2 Likes
combined with this :
…is fully comprehensible, but it shows basically the “dilemma” of Air RB:
- A mode being nothing more than Air AB+ is boring for more demanding players, as gaijin offers just very little aspects of “realism”.
- Every suggestion for improvements circles around immersion, more realism regarding game play / tactics and strategy in order to have fun.
- But every long-term player is fully aware that the mode looks like it is because the overwhelming masses of fresh players are looking for the current setup of Air RB.
- Things like “fun” are highly individual topics.
I am fully aware of that most players are happy with mouse aim in the current setup.
My point is that you can’t ask for more realism just in certain aspects - so if your fun is connected to totally unrealistic accuracy & flight behavior / stabilization whilst using the instructor there is nothing wrong with that.
But then asking for more “realism” or “immersion” in a mode which deals with flying an aircraft is simply not consistent if pure basics of flying or challenges whilst flying an aircraft are not considered - at least from my pov.
Have a good one!
We don’t need to add every last aspect of realism if it’s an unjustifiable detriment on gameplay, otherwise we’d just end up with Sim EC. Air RB has many issues, but controls are far from being one of them - IMO the excellent mouse aim mode is what sets this game apart from its competitors.
At most I’d say you could get rid of the extra G-load and nerf everyone to only pulling 9Gs, with more either blacking you out very fast or being prevented entirely by the Instructor, but that’s about it.
Nothing is stopping us from picking just the best aspects of real life while leaving out all the annoying, boring, but very real stuff like random mechanical breakdowns.
2 Likes
In some aspects realism is nice, like with vehicle models, and other aspects are better for gameplay. This isn’t a simulator, but the balance of realism and enjoyable gameplay is what makes this game so good.
More realism/immersion makes sense to a point regardless of controls. Mouse joystick is under full control, but is by no means realistic because Gaijin doesn’t expect people to need a full flight sim set to fly in their game. Not a single mode other than sim mentions that you need to know anything about planes or the challenges of them. This game is meant for enjoyment of vehicle combat, not simulation of vehicle combat. This game doesn’t need full realism or a complete lack of realism, just a good enough mix to be enjoyable.
I would be fine with this, as long as some aircraft got a sort of “scout” ability- maybe dive and attack aircraft? It gives them a very distinct role from mainline bombers, and aircraft like the dauntless were historically used as scout aircraft.
1 Like
I still wonder when we are getting the Boulton Paul Defiant lol
People say the XP-50 is op when the BTD-1 gets twice to 20mm ammo and spawns at high level bomber spawns. Soooo unfair to long range/frontline bombers. Plus you don’t even have to take payload and can still climb above the bombers too.
Sorry this is nonsense.
- It spawns at tactical bomber alt (=3.5 km and 1 km below strategic bombers)
- Every experienced pilot is fully aware of that the plane can’t climb above 5 km due to the severe loss of engine power. You can simply fly away from a BTD if you are above 5.5 km.
- There is no outclimbing of strategic bombers - even a Sterling can get to a “safe” altitude before they merge. This is not valid for tactical bombers on the 4 very small “Frontline” maps, so stuff like fully loaded Do 217s or B-25s can be easily intercepted.
You might look up the player “Aerial operative” - he is and was always on top of the KpB ratings with this thing - but not with bomber kills. He managed to find the “handling” sweet spot of the BTDs and had (always) 3 kills in it - ofc with his main strategy = forced headons of enemy fighters in their climbing phase.
1 Like
Fair.
EXPERIENCED, not many bomber players are experienced a 4.0. I’ve used the BTD a decent bit, and I didn’t care enough to find out where the engine power dopped off and I use it. I doubt average people look into it.
Most of the time they don’t climb, they stay at their spawn altitude. I have had a few climb a bit but not figh enough for me to not be able to fire at them.
You are correct that experienced players with some knowledge about engine power dropoffs can counter play you well, but most people don’t ever try.
I’m okay with the bonus reward for doing the planes’ intended jobs part. However x0.1 is too much for the planes killing targets outside its chosen role - just leave it x1. Think about some aircraft that has been designed or intentionally nerfed by gaijin unable to fullify their intended jobs at the first hand lol… The A-5C can’t even finish a base on its own. F-4C air superiority role being shit unless a full downtier. The J-7D being a clown at 11,0. That sort of thing.
2 Likes
I agree that the 0.1 and 10 multipliers are extreme, but they do serve an illustrative purpose, different values, say (0.5 and 2) (0.33 and 3) (0.25 and 4) (0.2 and 5), could be nice middle grounds, bc as we all know, “The Snail giveth, and the Snail taketh away”, so while the original suggestion calls it a “penalty” it would be more accurate to say that “this is the trade-off. UPFRONT. avoiding a shadow economy nerf/change later” for rewarding players for playing to their aircraft’s strengths/intended use. In short:
IT SHOULD BE IMPACTFUL ENOUGH TO SWAY PLAYERS INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES, BUT NEITHER OPPRESSIVELY PUNISHING FOR ‘UN-OPTIMAL/UNINTENDED’ PLAY NOR SHOULD IT BE SO ENTICING THAT PLAYERS STOP ENGAGING WITH OTHER ELEMENTS IN THE BATTLE SPACE.
As for those complaining about markers, the presence or removal of, they should remain in some form for accessibility, however currently they are far too powerful, a possible change: planes within a few km’s have a flashing dot above or next to them, to point out the existence of an enemy, that was not shared to allies unless they are in wingtip-to-wingtip formation, (fighter pilots Irl use hand signals to communicate under radio silence, that can be your roleplay for this limitation), would be an incredibly good change to gameplay.
This would massively limit 3rd parties ability to negate the progression of a dogfight.
Especially infuriating if the 3rd party arrives as their ally is about to lose from an advantageous position/circumstance. That is, for the one killed by the third party, right before they have got the kill from a disadvantage, not much takes more skill right?
While still allowing for IFF withing visual combat range. Top tier combat ranges can exceed this perfectly fine, as by the time the engagement range exceeds the range that markers would/should presented, most if not all aircraft have IFF equipped radars/rwr for longer range missile engagements.
This prevents (or at least reduces) the common occurrence of having someone in a losing position but not yet out of the fight from running at another aircraft several km’s away, that is either currently engaging enemies themselves, engaging other objectives, or in the process of rearming/repairing, if they are spotted by someone from outside “marker distance” fair game, but someone in the heat of a dogfight shouldn’t be rewarded, from a losing position, for simply pointing their plane at that red dot, waaay over there, and hoping that they last long enough to get a consolation kill, that doesn’t really promote learning, skillful or engagement gameplay does it?
A bit more fidelity could be used for fine tuning by the devs, for instance the most important information currently shown is “Distance, Aircraft, and how quickly Distance is changing”, knowing that a plane IS there, is more than enough to start reacting, not knowing what they are flying, not knowing how quickly they are closing to or separating from you, puts more emphasis on the players ability to both react to unexpected threats quickly, and the patience of methodically stalking a target and executing an attack pass.
Regardless of any change to markers UDS (Universal Dot Scaling) ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE IN GAME RIGHT NOW. As currently much like ULQ in ground battles, it provides such a massively unfair advantage to players with lowered graphics settings, that is not in any way accounted for, yes even in ARB currently players sometimes don’t show markers under certain circumstances, more noticeable later into games, as there are less sources of remote spotting, and when flying in the sun or in ground clutter.
Thanks for coming to my Ted™ talk.
2 Likes
Each match is hosted on a server and the amount of players you can put into that match isn’t a direct correlation to how much capacity that server is using. This is much simplified, but think of it as moving 2 people in 1 car or moving 4 people in 1 car. You aren’t using twice the gas in the later scenario, it’s more “efficient.”
Server capacity is the same. Hence, why we are being shoved into 16v16s and smaller team sizes was reluctantly added as only an option and “smaller” only means 12v12.
Gaijin really want to shove as many people as possible into matches as long as that experience those players get is passable. It has been, but that is slowly changing…causing the need for Gaijin to introduce new gimmicks such as S-300 and Grad targets to make things more exciting without making them better, because making them better eats away at the bottom dollar.
2 Likes
You car analogy is wrong. This isn’t how this works.
You are actually using twice the gas in the later scenario, probably even more. Multiprocessing has been figured out decades ago.
1 Like
Your whole post is nothing more than a wild guess - you can’t ignore the fact that basically all changes in “non-simulator” modes were made to eliminate the skill factor in the game play.
So whilst the Ground RB players are forced to play mostly on CQC maps, Air RB players are confronted with random results just due the sheer number of players / enemies within matches.
Both led to steamroll effects which kills (together with BRs & the MM) the effect of individual skill - as you can be skilled like hell but if you either play 8 vs 2 or 2 vs 8 after a few minutes, game results became a random event.
Skill doesn’t matter that much in the 16 vs 16 setup.
4 Likes
i mean youve got a serious issue with folks just running for a base or ground units and then just crashing or being cannon fodder and not trying to engage, at all.
teams now focus on running away rather than any meaningful engagements, and touching on top tier the 16v16 missile sliming madness is just that. the skill as been ripped out ARB and GRB update, by update
3 Likes
Who would have predicted that adding ARH missiles to all nations with current team deathmach will result in disaster. OH WAIT! Like half of community that asks for RB EC, duh…
But snail knows better.
4 Likes
Groundpounding is stale. You are mowing down harmless bots instead of actually using your brain to fight sentient humans.
BnZ fighters are still perfectly valid and viable in the current meta of props. Again, realism =/= gameplay balance. On top of that, if you want to hunt hardly visible dots, simulator is around the corner.
And you are still forgetting the nature of many players when they dont have a monumental advantage is to run away, climb away, or dive.
Strafing bots still isnt the point of PvP air combat.
There werent a lot of ai targets, so i see no connection. It was probably due to forcing at least one of the teams to land on carriers, which bombers and heavier attackers cannot do.