Nice, I’ll link to it.
Thanks! I already linked your post to mine as well.
The only thing I dont agree is to let Gaijin´s AI have ANY form of relevance in the battle. Their Gepards and Rolands on either SIM or Heli PvE are one of the worst coded AI ive seen in a videogame, they ban people for aimbotting when their own AI has it enabled. The Rolands dont even use their radars (Like a normal player would) they track it by hand (Hence why Chaff doesnt do nothing about the missiles) Gepards are a mix, sure they lock you and you can dump countermeasures to get out, but sometimes they snipe you form 2-3km away, hell, even before the tracers RENDER, thats something even a good player cant do consistently (which the AI does), even with a bit of luck.
My only suggestion for the MANPADS would be IR only and something that if you see and know when to defend against, you can defeat without problem. But then again, which would I, as a player, need to be punished (either by getting downed or losing countermeasures) for not giving the SARH and ARH carrying players an easy kill?
Extra: If the devs desire to rework ARB, for the love of god just make RB EC a permanent thing and rework the named bots, for the people who want to play it. The idea is not to “sPlIt ThE pLaYeRbAsE”, is to give people a choice on what they wanna play. If the match seems too empty? Add named bots into both teams and everyone can get a chance at a kill.
4 Likes
I hear you.
I wish AI would improve as well. Use of AI units for our idea would be quite simple, just following predetermined paths and dropping bombs at the end. I think current implementation can handle that.
Of course air defenses are there to stay, you just can’t have ARB without AA.
There are more ways to avoid radar missiles than abusing multipath propagation. They are currently rarely used, but we are trying to create an environment where such tactics are viable. We saw that a lot of people really dislike our MANPADs idea, so we offered some alternatives.
Thank you for your feedback!
2 Likes
This poll kept getting reset since we were adding other peoples idea to our original post, so we are moving it here. Sorry for the inconvenience, wish I knew editing resets the poll.
Removal of enemy markers.
- Keep markers as is
- Markers on for enemies close by
- Markers off
0
voters
Return to the first post after voting please.
7 Likes
On those matters then, i know that in custom battle, using Simplified Controls, i play within cockpit.
Keyboard is the only thing that provides control to the aircraft (so no real accuracy about the Gun kills, yet still doable).
The mouse ends up to be an only camera utility, to check around me.
On that point i think we could have a mixted mode in between SB and RB, with controls like mine i just described/ mouse Joystick/ Joystick only.
These ideas are bad and present a clear lack of understanding how actual match dynamics work. There is a game mode for no markers, it’s SIM.
LARPing has no place in air rb.
15 Likes
Air RB should be kept as a pure Deathmatch style gamemode. Anything objective based should be integrated into Air RB EC if it ever comes.
2 Likes
If we want to go true realism than also remove markers for bomb bases and ai ground targets as well
1 Like
There are some good suggestions in the overall proposal, but removing markers from ARB would definitely encourage passive or otherwise mindless gameplay. Maybe it would be better fit for ARB EC, as the larger proposal is pointing towards. I feel like the OP and many others in this thread would love to see ARB EC brought back and retained as a permanent gamemode, perhaps with some of the features and changes requested in the proposal. However, the removal of markers in the current arena style of ARB shouldn’t be considered as a proposal in good faith for the gamemode.
6 Likes
It sounds alot like the old Air RB EC.
I like the ideas that you proposed and the changes to markers too.
Heli’s should be added.
My idea would be to split even larger than current maps into 5 zones.
Each end zone is heavily protected by AA which serves to protect a main base(s).
These are used to supply resources to forward operating bases that populate the next zone.
This zone is allied/enemiy controlled but needs patrolling to keep said control.
If the FOB’s are not replenished with resources then fighters get reduced loadouts till the base runs dry and becomes susceptible to takeover/destruction.
Heli’s can be used to carry supplies (logistical) like Chinooks, Blackhawks and Mi-26. Maybe even logistical aircraft like the Herc etc…
These can be covered by Attack heli’s and/or fighters.
The logistical gameplay loop is there to supply the strike aircraft and fighters pushing into the central no man’s land to gain superiority and then push further into the enemies controlled airspace.
If one team plays well and the other doesn’t then the final scenario would see precision strikes on AA to make way for the capture of their home/main supply base.
This adds multiple gameplay loops with niche rewards. It promotes teamplay to maintain the fighting operability of the attack.
Now there are many things, with this idea, that would need working out.
I think the premise is sound though.
If everyone jumps in a fighter and attacks then they may only be able to manage 2 or 3 waves (RTB) and then there just wouldn’t be any weapons or fuel to resupply.
The team that shares the load and maintains supply lines wins over an extended playtime of 3 hours or so.
As a player you should be able to jump in and out of the fight as suits.
Maybe have even longer campaigns?
These could also be based in real life scenarios…
Anyhow, thats my two pence/cents.
It would definately bring me back to Air RB and probably give some much needed respite from CAS to Ground RB to boot.
2 Likes
Go sim if you don’t want markers.
10 Likes
I have nothing against markers, I actually prefer them as they are now.
While I do think reworking them a bit would make the game better, I like them on because my eyesight is poor.
3 Likes
Where’s the fourth option? I want markers to work like they are supposed to, not to have the game conspicuously choose which planes to show and not to show even though the parameters are supposed to be fixed.
Further, planes should be rendered all the time like they were before New Power (server replays are still like this, watch one if you want to know what it looks like), the game shouldn’t be picking and choosing which planes to physically render in either.
I am not sure to what you are referring to exactly. If two planes overlap the one closer to you is displayed while the one behind is translucent. Same goes for markers behind terrain. If this is what you meant.
This is an anti cheat measure, it’s not going away, that much I can guarantee. Improving it’s accuracy is also unlikely as it’s very computationally expensive.
With an expert crew, detection range is supposed to be 6.84km in the direction you’re looking, unless the sun is in frame, in which case it should be 1.71km. Many, MANY times I have seen people not spotted when they should be, or spotted when they shouldn’t be according to those rules.
EAC isn’t even a requirement to play ARB, so perhaps as a compromise we can enable EAC and remove the horrific spotting heuristics.
I am not going to argue about bugs and anti cheat. Open an issue on the bug tracker.
1 Like
Here I was thinking this was a suggestion thread…
Yes, for reworking ARB. Saying how markers are not working properly when they should is not a gameplay or gamemode issue, but a technical one. Open a bug report. Same goes for the other issue.
1 Like
Markers not working properly IS a gameplay issue, you shouldn’t be so naive to think that it’s a bug instead of an intentional intervention. Same goes for the physical rendering of planes in the game world, if an anti-cheat measure has negative gameplay repercussions for people who aren’t cheating, it’s then a gameplay issue.
1 Like