Dew it
Air RB grind time is already super fast though.
2-3 kills and you’re getting ~5000-9000 RP even as low as the yak-9s depending on how long the match drags out without premium
A 6vs6 engagement means your presence is impactful without it being a “Either you carry, or you might not even exist.”
It makes battles far less random, far less “oh, I just 2-3 minutes dogfighting this guy, my whole team died and now I’m facing 1vs8. Why did I even decide to play ARB again?” It makes your progression far more consistent.
That consistency I’d say would increase speed of progression in fact. It would also increase player satisfaction as there gets to be a far more granular sense of skill progression from “oh, it’s 1vs8 or carry” to “By being able to consistently kill 1-2 enemies, I made it much more likely for my team to win!”
10 vs 10 is also a decent break-down on a map with proper objectives.
In fact, in air sim tunisia is not one bit bigger than ARB tunisia. Why does it feel less claustrophobic even in big 12v12 lobbies?
Objectives.
There’s a 4vs4 going on for the air supremacy point, 16 km away there’s a 3vs3 going on for a ground battle. There’s a 2vs2 going on over the a.i bomber objective flying over the coast and so forth.
Tunisia sim is usually peak dogfighting experience.
Meanwhile ARB is: vomit everything into a 8x8 km square in the middle.
1 Like
Up to rank VI.
In order to get such numbers w 2-3 frags, you’re definately commiting to a +10min game. That’s not fast at all.
A 6v6 engagement also means that a full squad is capable to curbstomp an enemy team without much effort, even with a mediocre top tier vehicle, cause coordination can be key on such close games. That’s why big games are important, it brings chaos and the bare capability for people without a squad to thrive against organized individuals.
While i can agree that it makes progression reasonably more consistent, it only benefits average leaning good players and above, as mediocre players will be severly afected. And sorry to say it, but War Thunder is really away from being an esport, and there’s heavily documented periods in this game’s history proving that balance wasn’t a priority, thus consistancy ends up benefiting the meta, and not a massive amount of players.
Again, it’s completely up to the case. A good player will definately get a faster grind, while mediocre folks learning the ropes will be closer to frustration than nowadays.
I’ve said it before, and i’ll say it again: 10v10 can be the structural minimum, following a GOOD revamp on the objectives layouts. Sim achieves some of that, why ARB follows a different set? No one knows.
I’m definately more of a 12v12 person, but 20 players is still a decent amount per game. Below that it’s mere delusion, and it’ll certainly escalate how sweaty games could eventually feel, and knowing how changes are usually made, they’ll neglect the proper rewards adjustment to such reductions. But that’s really something for another chat.
I’d say 10-15 minute games are the norm until the f8u-2 in my experience, even with the f8u-2 games tend to last a decent while.
Added bonus, matches are more fun in the late game over the early game (ergo - 4vs4 or such), assuming it didn’t snowball hard on either side where it’s straggler hunt or 1vs8.
So, committing to a 10+ minute game to me sounds like a positive there.
They already can. I’ve witnessed mustang squads utterly dominating games before even in 16v16s, and I’m not talking the p-51h. Think it was cannonstang or the d30s.
Wouldn’t such consistency enable people to actually improve? Rather than getting constantly snowballed into games where they’re against near-impossible odds, they get games they can feel their gradual improvement make a difference and feel inspired/motivated.
It would make the “I’m a fighter LARPing as a bomber” people way more annoying, this I can concede.
My dream for ARB is ~ 3 airfields spaced ~16-24 km away for subsonic tiers (2-3 gridsquares on tunisia) with game-impacting objectives in-line with these airfields placed ~24 km from both sides for each of the 3 airfields. Game impacting obj can be a forward airfield for easier and faster rearming or sth. Basically sth that makes people not ignore them.
Then split players evenly into 3 4v4s with evenish mix of fighter/bomber/strikers.
This could allow to retain 16vs16 while breaking up the furball of madness that forms in the middle.
Hard part is finding an objective that cannot be ignored but also doesn’t lead to snowballing.
2 Likes
I agree that gaijin is doing their best to dumb down the game mode (just in order to support rookies) and 16 vs 16 is just part of this strategy, but my own rule of thumb is that games are becoming really interesting and challenging the smaller the lobbies are.
-
Either because both teams were thinned out equally or you have the privilege to get a small axis vs allies setup (still there early morning in Europe) or 6 vs 6 matches on Pacific maps.
-
This is were actual skill can be played out.
-
Large matches tend to become more and more random events - you can be good like hell, but if your rookie team collapses you get beaten by numbers.
Your whole argumentation boils down that the mass events in Air RB just benefit 2 player groups:
- Absolute pros which dominates (almost) every match
- Absolute rookies as all they have to do is to find even bigger rookies
And this is valid for prop and jet BRs. Even as i do not play jets i see my son frequently tracked by up to 8 missiles at the same time; this is pure madness.
The only strong point you have is that the majority of players are rookies and like the fast action especially in jets - so it is logical that gaijin won’t change anything as long as they sell high priced jets to minors like sliced bread.
There is pretty much nothing you can do as a solo player vs a coordinated squad - it doesn’t matter if you play 6 vs 6 or 16 vs 16. Real good squads have WRs in the high 80s - low 90s…just check the ENSO squad.
And as written before - the chaos you praise is exactly the opposite of structured game play.
2 Likes
…written here (=Return of Operation Iskra map):
1 Like
i like that way of showing enemys, like Ace combat (? less visual trash
Never played Ace Combat before so I wouldn’t know, it’d be similar to TWS but would function like spotting and would be more reliable and wouldn’t lag around like TWS.
honestly idk why yall say the R-73 is bad. ive used it at sub 70 kmh and it works fine. this is far from a real match scenario where you’d be going almost never under 200.
+1 Truth as fuck. It made me give up trying to queue in SA region while playing UK because 90% of the time it will be US & UK vs JAP. Having to baby sit 6+ idiots in trying not to dogfight Zero’s, and Ki’s, while still trying to maintain position so when shit hits the fan I can 1v9 stressed me out. Almost all matches I had playing in Pacific maps became more and more of an ACTUAL headache because of how truly inexperienced US teams were.
Add on to the fact that most of the Pacific maps had extreme biases. Makes me sick thinking about it again.
1 Like
I agree with you but the pl8b is a massive change from pl8a
They turned this in favour of US/UK.
I just came out of a Pacific match on Iwo Jima. This map became unwinnable for JP when one US/UK guy decides to run (Wyvern) or spaceclimb (P-38 & P-47) as the ai units win for them. Same as on Saipan.
On Midway you cant even get close to the US/UK af at A point as the deadly af aaa snipes you. On the contrary JP af aaa on Saipan is useless, but reappears after being captured by ai tanks with 2 times more light af aaa with the usual deadly hitscan up to 4 km.
These things are either an intentional buff towards US/UK or the result of lackluster map design / adjustments…
Actually i miss the SA checkbox - despite the flaws like described above they gave the match a kind of sense regarding immersion and atmosphere - wt lacks both.
But gaijin is going to kill those matches too - i played a hell of matches on Pacific maps last year (when SA was available) vs US premium 109s or UK Wyverns. Not a single JP plane is able to catch a well flown Wyvern - even the J2M2s (4.3 those days) were useless against them.
Have a good one!
1 Like
Completely agree. A bigger map like we sometimes have now achieves nothing.
The furball still happens in the middle with about 12 players of both sides going at it.
Then theres 2 of both sides larping in a BVR engagement and 2 SU25s on both sides dojming whetever it is they do.
The only thing that changed is the amount of time it took the players to fly to the furball
1 Like
It always was like this. Most of the pacific maps always were US autowins unless the japanese side decimated specific objectives. I forgot which one (Saipan ?) you need specifically to destroy both landing crafts and bot F6F or you would lose all airfields.
The only Pacific map that advantaged massively Japan was Wake Island.
Yeah it’s Saipan - 2 flotillas of landing craft are going for the Island on the right, another group for the left Island with the JP airfield (with useles af aaa); the F6F bots are attacking also this island.
Agreed - it was a nightmare, even when they gave US planes (finally) an airstart too - u had to kill the G4M1 bot bombers, a hell of patrol boats and you were totally outclimbed…
Yes - to a certain degree.
But since about 3-4 years we have these very small matches which effectively kills your chances to fulfill any objectives. I mean in a 6 vs 6 match on Iwo jima you need to kill 18 cargo ships before they release endless waves of landing craft - which launch tanks if they make it to the beach.
Even if you were good enough to kill 10 cargo ships with 10 x 60 kg bombs (TT B7A2) you got overwhelmed by the rest. But since ~ 1 or 1,5 years gaijin buffed aaa on escorting cruisers and the cargo ships itself; i lost a hell of planes due to that.
Same story with Saipan - you can wipe out one of the 3 landing craft flotillas and their tanks within a very small time window of 2-4 seconds with a perfectly aimed 800 kg bomb at exactly the time when the reach the beach - but the other 2 will win for them.
1 Like
The main difference is a better motor so slightly extended range, less pull due to the new motor and a dual element IRCCM if I recall, we could get this in the next update alongside the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
No offense but it is very distracting and annoying when you bold so much.
But yes the new motor is the big change along with the better seeker. The new motor actually has pretty insane thrust. It flies almost as fast as an r27er
No offense but it is very distracting and annoying when you bold so much
And the world keeps spinning 🌍🌎🌏🌍🌎🌏🌍🌎🌏
its inevitable that we have to make this game ace combat but multiplayer. the available weaponry to target variety is so off half the plane above 8.7 have 90% of their secondary weapon loadout useless/loses it’s merit. making this game a lobby oriented multiplayer instead of match oriented multiplayer is the only way to go forward.
No, fully mixed matchmaking [like arcade battles] would expose imbalance.
Historical teams would CAUSE imbalance.
There’s a reason the arcade game modes are the most popular, and it’s not cause they’re imbalanced.
@七-十三
War Thunder will never be Ace Combat outside of arcade battles.
1 Like