A few words upfront and to clarify some things:
- A discussion is based on the willingness to understand other people. The goal is not to prove who is right or wrong because opinions (in opposition to faith) are based on facts and depend from individual perspective - in a best case you encourage others to reflect their position.
- But for this mutual respect is essential. And mutual respect is shown if you read carefully deviating opinions - there is no need to defend your position as your initial statement is your opinion. Full stop.
So if you claim that some things need to change - i am with you. But in case when others have a deviating views on your ideas there is no need to create infinite loops and to shift goalposts just to circumvent or cover the flaws in your ideas.
Imho any proposals to improve Air RB should include a holistic and balanced view on the game itself and should be an improvement for all players of all plane classes.
So even this is just a theoretical exercise, any rework should be balanced to satisfy all involved parties. My opinion about your ideas:
- Some of your ideas are good and more or less the same like hundreds of other posts in the recent years, and others not.
- And not because they are bad, mainly as some of your ideas are simply just not precisely defined, contradict each other or mainly they are not balanced for all plane classes.
The passion of flying is not exclusively connected to fly single engine fighters and we have a lot of passionate pilots loving other plane classes, mainly bombers and heavy fighters.
-
So even you presented your idea how the game could be better - your pov is clearly fighter oriented - we have this currently in Air RB - called TDM.
-
So all of your ideas sound balanced, but a closer look showed that they are not really an improvement for non-fighter classes.
-
And this is comprehensible as you have neither the necessary experience as strike/heavy fighter nor as bomber pilot to assess the complex connection between map size & design, target locations and distance to them and necessary circumstances to make non-single fighters effective and fun to play.
-
If you see fellow players as food, this is fine - wt is at the end of the day a shooter and from a holistic pov there is nothing wrong with thinking this way. But i have serious issues if you ignore examples which were solely aimed to widen your view to see the broader picture.
-
I mean you admit that your heavy fighter experience is rather limited and after visiting Thunderskill i understand why you think that your smaller map proposal would be good for bombers too - you have imho zero experience in them, that’s why you fail to understand that it won’t work.
I tried my best to show you that your proposal “smaller maps” sounds good in theory, but is actually rather counterproductive for bombers and heavy fighters - and i used one small map (regarding distances between airfields), Frontline Mozdok, as example and connected this with your second (imho) critical proposal slots equally distributed by teams to show you the weak points of your thoughts, not more, not less.
Frontline Mozdok is imho near to that what you described - small distances, ground targets not in the middle of the map etc.
Small map Mozdok with your ideas
So imagine a 8 vs 8 with 3 strategic bombers, 2 attackers and 3 fighters per side. Team A comes with 3 Sterlings 2 Wyvens and 3 Chinese P-38s, Team B with 3 B-17s, 2 Do 335s and 3 P-38s. The Sterlings will never get near a base before the B-17 are in gun range, the 335s and the Wyvern kill each other in headons and even if one B-17 get killed by the 3 Sterlings there is simply no improvement for the Sterlings compared to today.
The different combat capabilities of different aircraft within the same class and identical or similar BRs makes this whole topic extremely complex.
Every successful heavy bomber pilot will tell you that he has to be smarter than the average fighter pilot in order to have a chance to drop and to rtb. If your proposal of close ranges to bases would be reality - after one week nobody would fly a “real” bomber as all bomber pilots would have to switch to stuff like T-18Bs, Tu-2s, Brigands or B7A2s as they would have otherwise no realistic chance for a drop in anything else.
Same with heavy fighters, they need room to be effective and on smaller maps they would have the same issue as bombers - their dots are visible right after spawn.
In order to end this imho just at the beginnin rather interesting discussion i decided to reply a last time in this matter to you. It is frankly spoken rather annoying to continue with a discussion when i got confronted with permanent shifting of goalposts and ignoring of deviating views.
In the OP is mentioned that ideas can be presented - and ideas might be discussed. So if i reply to 2 ideas (small maps & slot allocation) and gave you clear signs why that might be a not an improvement it makes zero sense to start discussions about BRs, usage of certain planes or you opinion about air spawns, their altitude or if they deserve that or not .
Because from a pure logical point you have just 2 ways to deal with your idea of small maps:
- You define a combat scenario including a map and adjust all aircraft regarding classification, actual combat effectiveness vs current BRs, air spawn, time to target and best way to give them a purposeful game play in order to contribute
or
- You come from the aircraft performance on average and adjust game play (maps and objectives) based on current performance and try to improve their game play and the fun whilst using them with minor adjustments to aircraft settings like BRs, classification, air spawn or not.
Every other approach will kill the idea as you get overwhelmed by the underlying complexity.
If you choose path #1 it is pointless to reply to every counter argument like:
“Do this, do that” or “I have no problems with that” or “adjust this parameter” and so on an so forth as this should have been considered upfront - and the discussion drifts away from the core as you get lost in details.
Have a good one!
I decided to out put a spoiler to my feedback to your last post as your reply was imho not really suited to improve prop Air RB.
Summary
- Imho it can deal with almost every fighter and it was even in my 2.247 matches in the TT version the perfect weapon to fight XP-50 and Yak-3 spam.
- What a plane needs and what it gets are different topics and your assessment is your private opinion.
- With the same logic all interceptors with extreme good climb rates would need a lower airspawn.
- And - a “real” interceptor should have sacrificed turn vs climb and armament - so by giving these planes an IC spawn even gaijin increases the gap vs non-airspawn fighters.
-
If i say i reverse climb on small maps in my SM 92 in a full uptier in order to have a chance for a good positioning it should be clear that there is a very strong connection between map sizes, distance to bases and combat effectiveness.
-
So even if you assess them as “shit in one way or another” does this not imply that others come to the same conclusions - if you check my stats in this plane you might realize that these can be played, it requires just more experience to make them work.
-
So if the distance to bases is too small you can’t get fast enough to altitude - if the distance is too great, you get outclimbed by fighters with airfield spawn.
-
Therefore your reply just proves that you assume that your way to play the game was the basis for your proposal - despite i wrote earlier that there is no challenge for me to fly single engine fighters - and imho also not for others if they have more than 10 days fighter experience as their experience advantage vs the average opponent is way too high.
-
And yes, besides a few exceptions twin engine fighters suck usually - that’s why i fly them.
- This is nice for you but has the same confidential level as mine - purely anecdotal.
- And tbh imho there is huge gap between anecdotal evidence and facts - and you can claim whatever you want, nobody cares.
- Same here - nobody cares.
- And the question is not how you perform
- And frankly spoken your stats do no not confirm your self-assessment.
If you try to defend your initial positioning by rejecting other positions and not considering them as plain & simple feedback you missed the key part of any fruitful discussion - trying to understand deviating opinions and to reflect your own positioning.
Seeing your replies just as rather one-side declarations of your views, it makes for me no sense to continue, thx for understanding!