Air RB and its possible rework

[SanguineSerpent]

@themadseventeen

I imagine it in a way that fighters clear the way for their strike aircraft. Once your fighters win and path is clear strike aircraft can proceed.

I’m thinking that their fighters may simply ignore other fighters and go for easy kills on the strike aircraft. Of course, some strike aircraft are not completely defenseless against fighters, but they are definitely more easy targets than fighters are. Maybe some friendly fighters would be able to launch an IRCCM missile while they try to hunt the attackers down, but it may be situational.

@themadseventeen

@MyHugeDeck suggested more varied terrain, for example.

Arcade battles have more exaggerated terrain (mountains everywhere). I think this is very interesting, and should be implemented into ARB (although maybe not everywhere). Good RB maps that somewhat implement this already are maps like City, but the mountains should appear more frequently. At the moment, we have most maps where there is nothing but ground units and an extremely flat terrain.

@themadseventeen

I thought we would have 1 or 2 per match, per side.

That would be great.

@themadseventeen

We thought about including AWACS style aircraft as AI support, because we think that’s cool, but we couldn’t see what problem it would solve. With this we might have a reason to add them.

That would be interesting, where destroying the AWACS may be possible, and would perhaps stop the ability for your team to detect enemies via markers? (or enemies that are behind friendly side of the map)

[MyHugeDeck]

There is another aspect to consider and this is a big one.

How will you ensure each team has the right number of strike fighters/bombers? And even if they are there, why would dedicated fighters protect them when they can just directly go for the enemy fighters, just as it is right now?

There is no real incentive for being the protective wingman and everyone at top tier is in it for themselves. Everyone plays selfishly.

[SanguineSerpent]

@MyHugeDeck

And even if they are there, why would dedicated fighters protect them when they can just directly go for the enemy fighters, just as it is right now?

Well, back then, bombers were extremely powerful, and had the ability to win matches by bombing enemy airfield reliably. Then, it was extremely important to deal with them.

@themadseventeen

• Strike aircraft and fighters carrying A2G loadouts

Right now, strike planes are not really useful in the top tier meta. Destroying bases and ground targets doesn’t really affect the outcome of the game. Games are very rarely ended due to ticket bleed, and even if they are teams that won because of strike aircraft would have most likely won earlier if they had fighters instead.
All planes should have a place in ARB.
Of course not to mention, strike planes are kind of free food for fighters since they are forced to fight in the same space with them.

Solution: Make strike aircraft and their objectives the main part of the game, instead of an afterthought. This would mean a few things. First, players are able to respawn now and can respawn as many times as they like. Each spawn (except the first) costs as much as full repair cost. Second, instead of player kills the objective now are bombing targets. This creates an interesting dynamic between fighters and strike aircraft. You need strike aircraft to win the game, but since they are almost defenseless against fighters, they need fighter support. Teams would have to fight for air superiority so that their strike groups can go and do their jobs. This way both players who like playing fighters get their fill, and people who like blowing stuff up get to do so.
To further increase the complexity and challenge of balancing your loadouts, we thought of having multiple types of targets. Some are light and wide area, so a lot of smaller yield bombs or rockets work better against them. Others are harder and smaller, requiring precision strikes to take out.
Managing the balance between A2G and A2A power becomes crucial to winning games.

If this were to be added, the fighters would have a much greater incentive to help the team out against attackers / strike aircraft than they do now (although they still go for them since they’re an easy source of kills).

[themadseventeen]

@SanguineSerpent

I’m thinking that their fighters may simply ignore other fighters and go for easy kills on the strike aircraft. Of course, some strike aircraft are not completely defenseless against fighters, but they are definitely more easy targets than fighters are. Maybe some friendly fighters would be able to launch an IRCCM missile while they try to hunt the attackers down, but it may be situational.

@MyHugeDeck

How will you ensure each team has the right number of strike fighters/bombers? And even if they are there, why would dedicated fighters protect them when they can just directly go for the enemy fighters, just as it is right now?

I imagine people would realize strike aircraft are crucial to wining and defend them. And I don’t mean fly next to them, although that is an option, but intercepting enemy fighters.

Btw by stike aircraft I am including fighters carrying A2G loadouts.

@SanguineSerpent

Arcade battles have more exaggerated terrain (mountains everywhere). I think this is very interesting, and should be implemented into ARB (although maybe not everywhere). Good RB maps that somewhat implement this already are maps like City, but the mountains should appear more frequently. At the moment, we have most maps where there is nothing but ground units and an extremely flat terrain.

I agree, arcade maps are so much fun. There a lot of places on Earth with this style of terrain, could be added to RB.

@SanguineSerpent

and would perhaps stop the ability for your team to detect enemies via markers? (or enemies that are behind friendly side of the map)

Great idea.

[MyHugeDeck]

@SanguineSerpent

Good RB maps that somewhat implement this already are maps like City, but the mountains should appear more frequently.

I like fighting inside the city but the problem is that its too small and not everyone gets into the city to fight. Most dogfights take place in the bay and that’s not very interesting. Having a big map with just irregular terrain would be really cool

[Macekeeks]

good point i would say you could bring multiple aircraft like in grb as we get more of course this would extend match times and at least entice you to play a different role in the same battle.

[themadseventeen]

@MyHugeDeck

How will you ensure each team has the right number of strike fighters/bombers?

There is no way to “ensure” this. But I think there is enough players out there that like playing such planes but don’t since the gamemode currently doesn’t accommodate them very well.

[MyHugeDeck]

Now that would fuck up the matchmaker and also make it less serious because if you can just respawn then its not the same is it

[Macekeeks]

I’ve always thought some kind of respawns should come either the same aircraft that you have to pay for like sim or multiple vehicles like grb or arcade, I like the thought of a large battle of attrition instead of having to only play your life then back to the hangar so I guess that’s where we differ.

[MyHugeDeck]

I say, we take away the markers and make it more like air sb, reduce the player count, increase the map size and terrain features on those maps and add more points of interest.
Those are the things that we can atleast agree upon. Making ground pounding the main focus is…controversial to say the least. It has its pros and cons

[themadseventeen]

@MyHugeDeck

then its not the same is it

That’s kinda what we are going for here lol

[MyHugeDeck]

Attrition works when you have a lot of things to fuck up and a lot of time to do that. ARB doesnt last very long

[themadseventeen]

@MyHugeDeck

Making ground pounding the main focus is…controversial to say the least. It has its pros and cons

I think it makes sense in the “Realistic” setting ARB is trying to portray. You don’t end up with an aerial battle in real life if someone didn’t want to bomb something.

@MyHugeDeck

ARB doesnt last very long

This new one would last a few times longer, 3 or 4 for example.

[MyHugeDeck]

I just want anything that will put the Realistic and Realistic Battles. Something intense. Something that makes my heart beat. Dogfights in DCS and even Air Sim do that. ARB rn is point and click. Boring

[MyHugeDeck]

I can see myself playing one game for half an hour
Maybe even 45 minutes at most
But an hour or more; id much rather just hop into a sim game ykwim.
It needs to last longer than it does rn and shorter than sim

[Macekeeks]

thats why i think it should be extended games are so short in my opinion this could even be its own game mode in a tab like sim is purely for arh combat
and to add to reasons to bomb it would ideally be things that would hamper the enemy team like slowly removing spotting leaving blind spots with radar stations and awacs doesn’t mean datalink needs to come for things like missiles though.

[MyHugeDeck]

@themadseventeen

I think it makes sense in the “Realistic” setting ARB is trying to portray. You don’t end up with an aerial battle in real life if someone didn’t want to bomb something.

That would be realistic yes, but it takes a lot away from actual air to air combat. I honestly don’t know which way to go here

[Macekeeks]

@MyHugeDeck

Maybe even 45 minutes at most
But an hour or more; id much rather just hop into a sim game ykwim.

i agree the ticket count is really what should dictate how long they want matches on average to be then of course maybe have a 1 hour match timer

[themadseventeen]

I think 45 minutes is the sweet spot. A lot of people play like 5 or 6 ARB games in the row now, and do the same thing every single time. I think this would be a good replacement for that.

[themadseventeen]

@MyHugeDeck

I honestly don’t know which way to go here

It would be amazing if we could get this in game so that we can try it and get a feel for it. We can maybe make a custom battle with such setting and see how people like it.