Air RB and its possible rework

[Macekeeks]

I dont think you understand what we want air rb lacks variety and is the same thing over and over fly left, fly low, spam ir missiles if you could actually fly high and get rewarded for your missile being more effective you should. even in lower lobby counts flying on the deck would still be meta if not mandatory

[MrFisherman1812]

+1

[SanguineSerpent]

@themadseventeen

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.

Sounds interesting, but it removes the thrill of managing to get an ACE and surviving till the end of the match, and replaces it with ‘winning by tickets’, which, on its own, is fine, but I don’t think it’s a good trade-off. Sounds more like air arcade battles than what ARB is about.
And from what I can understand, fighters effectively have to baby-sit their strike teammates (which can be sometimes fun, but also very frustrating) so that they can win.

@themadseventeen

• Furballs and third partying

Due to linear map layouts (spawn, middle of the map with objectives, other spawn) every single player meets enemies in the middle of the map, which creates a giant furball. In these furballs it feels like all kills and deaths are based on luck, since no one can keep track of 6, 7 or more enemies around themselves. This leads to a lot of frustration upon death, and I would say that kills don’t feel as rewarding as in a proper dogfight.
Another problem with this is that it doesn’t allow for dogfights to exist. If someone tries to engage with someone for more than a turn or two, they are going to get third partied, leading to them dying, or their target dying to someone else while engaging. Again, more frustration.

Solution: There are a few remedies for this. First one is to reduce player density by placing multiple airfields per team, all along their edge of the map (like in sim). The only thing that matters is player density. If a map is large it can have more than 32 players. Another measure on top of this is limiting the number of players that can spawn on an airfield. This would ensure an even distribution of players across the map at the start of the match.
Game objectives are also spread across the map to accommodate this.

Mostly agree.

@themadseventeen

• Map sizes and modern weapons

Maps like small Spain, small Afghanistan and City are too small for modern planes to work on them. As soon as you reach Mach 1, you are in range of modern SARH (and ARH soon to come) missiles. This leads to everyone hugging the ground, which in turns makes these weapons almost useless. These maps are just too small and should be removed after 11.0 or so.

Multipathing made it so that everyone is flying tree top level, which we feel like goes against the nature of air combat. Right now these weapons are primarily used for head on attacks on players that made the mistake of ungluing themselves from the ground.

Solution: Maps that are played at top tier should only be of the largest variety War Thunder has to offer to allow these weapons to operate more naturally. In order to “unglue” players from the ground MANPADs are placed at some areas of the map. Their approximate position is marked on the map, but might be outdated, or it might not be there (bad intel). These MANPADs should be deadly enough that players would have to gamble if they want to fly low close to them. Objectives should also have capable AA defenses, some better, some worse.

My problem, like @girl_twink, is that MANPADs ruin 1v1s as you so happen to be on the deck, just like center-map Gepards do too. SAHR should be usable, but they should be situational, not an easy way to kill someone just because the enemy had to avoid MANPADs. They are already situational enough, although they are more situational than I think are useful (hence your solution). But again, I think the on-the-deck tactic that Air RB had evolved into is fair enough, and doesn’t let R-27ERs slingers completely stomp the enemy team.

@themadseventeen

• Repetitiveness of ARB

Every match plays the same in ARB. Take off, go to the middle of the map, dodge some R-27s and AIM-54, shoot some SARH missiles yourself, merge into the giant furball, and continue from there if you survive. If you die at any point, leave the match to do it all again. Alternatively climb up at the start of the match if you have R-27s or AIM-54s.

Solution: Changing the gamemode to a ground and air focused one already increases the amount of options players have, which leads to more different games as they progress. In addition to this objectives are randomly chosen at the beginning of each match. Random events also can occur during a match. Some examples of those would be:

1. Cruise missile strikes headed for objectives.
2. Supersonic bombers going to objectives.
3. Helicopters going for objectives.
4. Landing craft going to set up artillery to shell objectives

These events wouldn’t be a total surprise, a warning would be shown a few minutes in advance. This forces players to think in advance.

100% agree with adding random events. That seems interesting, but they shouldn’t be the main part of an air realistic match.

@themadseventeen

Potential removal of enemy markers

I think markers off other than friendlies would make it so that having radar would be much more useful (other than to detect aircraft from BVR, and to launch radar missiles). The only problem I feel like will be an issue is that it may become extremely easy to get behind the whole enemy team and launch IRCCM missiles without any detection, which is a smart but very frustrating tactic (for the enemy) that players could utilize.
If this seems too likely to be the case, I think being able to detect enemies, and have them marked, should be as it is.

[girl_twink]

But your idea involves increasing the number of playerers? In matches currently, whether they’re on City or one of the extra large “EC” maps, a furball seems to universally develop. No matter how big you make a map, as it stands most players will usually stick together.

[Ravanos]

Very well put together and there is very good suggestions for positive changes.

[SanguineSerpent]

Most players get to the center of the map (whether it be big or small), and then the furball begins.

[Macekeeks]

@SanguineSerpent

My problem, like @girl_twink, is that MANPADs ruin 1v1s as you so happen to be on the deck, just like center-map Gepards do too

putting them around POIs would help with bots and people flying straight doing nothing for the team rolands would atleast make them consider the angle they are flying at not to mention other players in the area.

[Macekeeks]

@girl_twink

No matter how big you make a map, as it stands most players will usually stick together.

exactly that’s the problem there needs to be reasons to spread out which is what we are suggesting doesn’t help everyone spawns on one airfield

[themadseventeen]

@SanguineSerpent

And from what I can understand, fighters effectively have to baby-sit their strike teammates (which can be sometimes fun, but also very frustrating) so that they can win.

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.

@SanguineSerpent

My problem, like @girl_twink, is that MANPADs ruin 1v1s as you so happen to be on the deck, just like center-map Gepards do too. SAHR should be usable, but they should be situational, not an easy way to kill someone just because the enemy had to avoid MANPADs. They are already situational enough, although they are more situational than I think are useful (hence your solution). But again, I think the on-the-deck tactic that Air RB had evolved into is fair enough, and doesn’t let R-27ERs slingers completely stomp the enemy team.

We proposed MANPADs as a solution to a problem, not just because we want MANPADs for no reason. If we can come up with a better solution I am fine with not having MANPADs. @MyHugeDeck suggested more varied terrain, for example.

As for R-27ERs, that’s more of question of balance. Meta planes and missiles come and go, but the gamemode stays

@SanguineSerpent

That seems interesting, but they shouldn’t be the main part of an air realistic match.

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

@SanguineSerpent

The only problem I feel like will be an issue is that it may become extremely easy to get behind the whole enemy team and launch IRCCM missiles without any detection, which is a smart but very frustrating tactic (for the enemy) that players could utilize.

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.

[themadseventeen]

Sure you can all stick together but that would probably lead to you losing since your enemies will just destroy your undefended objectives. At least how I imagine it

[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