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
2 Likes
That’s kinda what we are going for here lol
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
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.
This new one would last a few times longer, 3 or 4 for example.
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
1 Like
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
3 Likes
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.
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
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
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
1 Like
gaijin did do the arh test which was very successful i think they should do more tests like this and try new mechanics to see what works maybe in between events during the breaks
1 Like
I think I am going to downloading war thunder’s CDK and try to make something as close to what we are discussing here, and maybe throw something like an event after.
1 Like
That would be cool, but I think it would be better to wait for Fox-3s to come out and include them into the test
3 Likes
Def. I can’t even make it that fast, I never made something for War Thunder
1 Like
After I make it let’s contact some content creators to see if they can help provide test subjects participants for our test.
1 Like
I posted this in another thread the other day. But these were my thoughts on how to improve Air RB. (I will confess that I mainly play jets at this point so this could play out differently for props. But the thought that I’ve put into this is mainly geared toward jets.)
Big maps. 100x100 and 128x128.
Multiple Spawn locations. As of right now we all spawn in one spot. Just like ground RB give us multiple, ideally three. This will help stop the funneling effect that occurs in air RB matches.
This one’s a little more on the controversial side. But I think the game should start with air spawns for everyone. I think depending on what you’re flying should dictate the altitude you spawn at. Bombers with bomber altitude, interceptors with interceptor altitude, strike fighters with strike fighter altitude, and fighters with a fighter altitude. But I think everyone should start with an air spawn.
Hide the location of the enemy airfields. Just like carriers in Sim battles. They should not be known until you actually discover them and even then it shouldn’t be marked on the map. The only way to find the airfield is to follow someone back to it.
Random airfield spawn locations. Meaning that the airfield isn’t always going to be in the same location on the map. It can vary. Same with the auxiliary airfields.
Multiple bases for bombing. Just like the large maps already have. More than four bases is needed.
Multiple ground convoys and fixed ground target locations spread across the map. This will also help with the funneling effect.
Add ships and carriers back into air RB. There are multiple aircraft that have the ability to take out these ships and carriers. But those loadouts are completely worthless because I can’t tell you the last time I’ve seen a carrier or an actual ship in an air RB match.
Like with ground RB. Provide an option for night battles. I can’t tell you the last time I had a night battle in air RB. It has been years. Once you get to a certain BR, the radars are good enough for each team to find each other easily. Plus from what I’ve seen from night battles it’s not all that dark anymore anyways.
Diminish the amount of ticket loss when it comes to AI versus AI. I’m not sure what the number is. This is just hypothetical. Let’s say if a player destroys a pill box it takes 100 tickets off. But if an AI destroys the pill box, it only takes 25. This will help prevent the AI from dictating matches as much as they do now.
5 Likes
I would take all of these and add them to current air RB, even without other stuff we suggested.
1 Like
I’m fine with these simple steps to improve air rb and encourage them anything is better than what we have right now the only problem i consistently see is well players are the problem the random airfield location will help a lot with just flying left.
The only way i see to shake up player behavior is to make the map very unfriendly which is like you said very controversial.
Thank you for the feedback. The biggest issue with air RB is the map design at this point. People like to blame it on the 16 vs 16. But that would be acceptable if these changes were made. The biggest issue is we’re all funneled into each other right now.
1 Like