WT started as a WW2 through cold war game.
It has never been WW2 only.
There was no cut-off date before the cold-war.
Sabres were in the game since first open beta release.
Tanks were into the cold war from the start.
Why black out nametags?
Forum rules are to avoid putting hate on anyone in particular, but this is an entire team.
And after all this time, Gaijin doesn’t seem to be doing much about it…
3 Likes
Because most who complain about it pale in comparison to the vast amounts of people who don’t give a damn and just want their daily dopamine boost when they see that sweet red text that says “1x Aircraft destroyed” and die immediately to the Sparrow or something.
Why would you care when you can just get into another match anyway?
It was probably too much asking and too big of a sudden change to be accepted.
I think you should continue to suggest ideas to improve the ARB mode whatever people overractions on the forum.
They should test more of these on the dev server before implementing in prod though.
1 Like
I don’t think those who complain pale in comparison to those who don’t mind. If we extrapolate the amount of attention this issue is recieveing in the forums, we can infer that a great percentage of the playerbase is actually concerned. The forum’s users are a cross-section of the playerbase, not just a small part of it.
1 Like
Most players dont even know the forum exists. It doesn’t mean they don’t care. They likely don’t even think that they can have an impact on development.
Im sure there are some that don’t care but we currently have polls conducted recrntly by CCs that gained thousands of votes which are 80-90% in favor of an Air RB rework or Air RB EC.
These were a shockingly large cross-section of the playerbase and is a fairly good representation.
Also remember that many of these casual players are FTP. People here on the forums are the ones invested in the game in some way shape or form.
We’re the ones who pay for the game, so yeah im sure Gaijin sees these complaints. It’s just a matter of when they actually get to addressing them.
2 Likes
ARB is old and stale. Its same thing over and over again. EC was supposed to be like mission objective based but the objectives are so ungodly far and as a fighter you would have to waste resources to actually win the game to take out AI. Most maps still dont have mid airfields so you gotta go all the way back to rearm.
Also in ARB we have the plague of bombing teammates who contribute nothing to the match and die.
Most ground targets are also fully modeled so a quick pop with your guns wont kill them.
4 Likes
Air RB is indeed “shovelware.”
And as far as I’m concerned, that is an absolute travesty. I mostly only play it to spade out planes to have fun with in the combined arms modes, even purebred fighters, since I enjoy markerless RB dogfights leagues more than what Air RB does.
I do think the mode can improve, but the changes required would be so dramatic (plus of course spark some backlash from the folk who only care about dogfights and look down on non-fighters) that I don’t see much actually surviving the proposal phase to actually get implemented.
It we want Air RB to be more than “shovelware,” then the mode needs to actually focus on more than just Aerial PvP team deathmatches. Attackers, Bombers, and the CAS loadouts for Multirole Fighters are not built really for deathmatches. You literally can’t make any of that relevant unless there is room to make those objectives relevant, and with how a round instantly ends when the last player is shot down regardless of the ground situation, there isn’t any room to expand nonfighter usefulness without threatening to bring back the (rightfully obnoxious) attacker/bomber rushes of years past that are occasionally still seen on certain maps like Poland, Normandy, and Tunisia.
The game has the solutions to fix each and every mode’s problems. All it needs is the willpower to implement them, sometimes over and above the cries of certain groups of people.
3 Likes
At first glance, which is clearly visible, the gameplay is quite substantial for most players - dogfight on the ground, kill or the end and the next game …
No use of the advantages of a specific aircraft, climbing to a height is considered a tedious and boring evil and a lot more players who play like this at the ground require everyone to support them and play like that too…
If it suits the majority, why would Gaijin change it ?
So it happens that a lot of players leave, because the target group is regular players who came to play as much as possible from an airplane that they heard about somewhere…
Those who want something more have to go to the SIM or leave, so what’s the matter players have done in the past… The system of adding planes works, but the battles run in the same deathmatch. …
A properly created EC, with a thoughtful and variable environment would be the solution, the question is how many players want to think while playing, or do they just want to simply consume the game…
I dont agree that the gameplay fits the majority of people. I think that’s what Gaijin is attempting but the result is that the game play fits nobody.
At the upper tiers, it’s not an easily accessible game. It takes a lot of time for new players to figure out how to manage a furball.
With a proper RB EC mode, implemted correctly, i believe that Gaijin could actually create a mode that suits the majority of players.
With longer matches, multiple airfields, spread out AI and maybe even removed enemy markers, passive PVE players could do their thing with little interference from PVP players and PVP players could continue their furballs and BVR with more spread out teams, allowing for use of more tactics.
Right now the mode just doesn’t suit either of those groups. Its too dense for PVE players to be successful and its too chaotic for PVP players to utilize the skills of their plane.
Which is why every top tier aircraft basically feels identical.
2 Likes
The air component of the game, when I take pure PVP, it works out to me:
-
high-altitude and interceptor fighters vs. bombers, a fight high in the sky (+ 6000 meters), when damage to the plane and return to the airport means a loss.
-
front fighters, heavy fighters vs. medium bombers and attack aircraft … all fighters = ground start, medium bombers and attack aircraft, either start from the forward airfield or airstart to a height of approx. 1500 meters…
Or the map would have to be so sophisticated (interactive) that locations for aircraft of a certain type would be displayed as targets -
-
heavy and strategic bombers = military factories, large military stations, refineries, missile bases, airports, large ammunition depots, etc…
-
medium bombers and attack aircraft = bridges, fortified artillery positions, convoys of vehicles, field ammunition depots,
(armored trains, but here the game companies should not go and destroy the tracks so that the train is mobile until the very end of the destruction) etc…
Some time ago I researched an aerial map of Norway, in its basic form…
That map in its raw state is 180 km x 180 km … and is used minimally, while historically a lot of things have happened there, just like on a lot of others, a larger distribution of targets would be ideal …
I personally think that for:
The flight component of the game ( mods ),
it would be nice if the maps were enlarged and the front line style AI positions were removed.
Simply air combat, where there would be targets for strategic and heavy bombers, these targets protected in their vicinity by AI AAA (from anti-aircraft guns to missiles), to this, radar bases would be added at higher tiers…
Ground component (modes)
The game could be expanded here, so not only attack aircraft and tanks, but also medium bombers and heavy fighters, outside the small area of tank combat, for example artillery positions, convoys, fortified areas of bunkers, convoys, etc.
The marine component works best for me so far…
Fighter, torpedo and dive bombers, long-range and reconnaissance naval bombers, modern aircraft with naval armament, AI convoys (armed military or armed supply transports), coastal fortresses and fortifications … maps for large ships to calculate the maximum range of heavy cannon … don’t sail with a big ship between the islands…
That way, players with different machines would play what is intended for a certain type of machine and not destroy objectives that are intended for players with a different type of machine…
This is how it is true that many machines are basically played the same way for a long time…
These changes would really pigeon hole each type of aircraft and could potentially cause some major game breaking advantages.
We definitely need more interactive objectives.
What’s next you gonna start writing terms like neural net interface, phased plasma in 40 watt range and other useless tidbits to try and push your failed point?
2 Likes
If you are unfamiliar with the term “AI” In videogameterms. Let me reffer to this Goldeneye 007 N64 game guide from the year 2000 where they take advantage of the guard AI to beat the levels:
This comprehension is very bad, not even related to the chain of comments.
Lag was pretty much spot on in assisting my point, which is why I didn’t respond to your off-point post.
No one here is talking about further AI advancements used by server clusters.
We’re talking about internal AI the client uses to control vehicles.
I am just clearing up a missunderstanding in regards to the apperant disconnect between their and your understanding of the word “AI” In this conversational context.
Also a witty comment in regards to an allegation of using buzzwords to distract from to conversation at hand.
And yet, it still has literally nothing to do with the original post I made and you replied to. Once again making my exact point.