well part of the reason were stuck in a skill deprived meta is because a lot of people just bomb their way to top tier in their f4s or whatever without gaining any experience. I agree that wt is essentially a tdm with 1 life unless you play sim which needs rewards buffed and reduce respawn cost. Let me tell you why i play warthunder though so you understand my perspective of things, we have different opinions and thats ok. DCS is the hardcore sim, with hotas and everything. But thing is, sometimes I dont want to spend half an hour starting up my plane and flying towards where the action is, my biggest issue with DCS is theres not a lot of variety, only competitive non nato plane is the jf17 and were not gonna get more modern planes, plus lot of people lost trust in DCS due to how they treat third parties which ended up in development halted for the strike eagle which is what 70/80 dollars cant remember. Plus DCS requires a lot of focus. In wt I can experience more aircraft in a more casual and faster pace environment while expecting things to happen like they should ie multipathing not being 100 meters. I feel that arcade at top tier is just a huge mess anyways so what I think would be a better solution is to update air arcade for top tiers, make it more how you would enjoy it, bigger multipath etc etc while leave air rb with more realistic effects for people who want to experience things in lets call it a more realistic way.
Ofcourse id love to see other things to do in a match, base bombing and pvp is what people do because they are the most rewarding thats why i think attacking ground targets should give greater rewards to diversify gameplay, add ships for anti ship warfare, radar stations and maybe distant SAM sites to add sead and anti radar missions, heck radars would even have a mechanic helping with spotting in some way until someone destroys the radar stations.
But ultimately, there is a split between communities, people who want the game to be more realistic and lets call it less forgiving, and people like you who would rather appreciate the planes for what they are, hence I think reworking air arcade for top tiers would satisfy both groups of people. Yes there is sim but not everyone has access to a hotas ( its not that enjoyable with keyboard and mouse imo) and also its a lot more time demanding than air rb.
Um? Are you serious? I am able to adapt. I had zero issues abusing the overprotective barrier that is multipathing. I will have zero issues relying on notching as well, since I practice both procedures. I am not as lost as you assume that I am.
Disingenuous argument confusing realism to historical accuracy. Tale as old as time at this point.
It devolved to TDM if you cared to understand what I said. People b**** about bombers. People b**** about losing by tickets and ground targets. People come in thinking that the air war is only about fighters and nothing else. It is this mindset that makes it stale. There is very little variety to it. You even state:
But to hell with variety, right? If it isn’t a fighter, it’s useless. It can’t dogfight? BORING! I am tired seeing this toxic cycle of Fighter Mafia trash.
I would like to see more variety though in ground units like asm, radar bases, and have a decent payouts, yeah theres other targets but the payout most often isnt worth it. Most people go for either base or players and attack everything else when theres almost no players left
I’ve yet to die to an active radar missile according to my memory.
If I did, it was once during a dogfight.
And the most notable situation was me dodging an AIM-120 while my AIM-7F/M was en route to the dude that fired on me.
We should add better maps than current ones, that what we definetly need.
Maps like Pyrenees was fine but too short, highly cliffed terrain allows to hide while being stock .
historically have planes been flown in 3rd person view?
realisticly have planes been flown in 3rd person view?
BlockquoteBut to hell with variety, right? If it isn’t a fighter, it’s useless. It can’t dogfight? BORING! I am tired seeing this toxic cycle of Fighter Mafia trash.
so if you were driving a 50k+ dollar car with all the bells and whistles and you were offered to give that up to drive a lada or a bmw isseta you woud take that even even though you would lose your current car for an indeterminint amount of time with no garantee of getting your origional car back of getting an upgraded one in the future. you would take that trade 100% of the time becasue of variety?
I mean its not a really good analogy the third person thing, we like the realistic mechanics while playing in a nice enjoyable format with mouse aim and third person, I could take your statement and turn it up and say we need to fly in a full cockpit with hydraulics to play realistically if not better fly the actual plane for realism
I just think people didnt have time to adapt and rather would complain than improve, i literally rush the enemy flank in SA gripen and fire off darters at their most effective range and notch multiple missiles, nlg I had some exciting situations
Removing the context of what I said to attempt a “gotcha” is lazy. You should know well enough the person I was responding to mixed those two aspects. It doesn’t suddenly become “It can’t be realistic because it’s third person.” The game is and has been a “realistic” game.
What is this paragraph? How is that even related to what I said? I never said to remove fighters, it is a complaint that there aren’t enough variety of vehicles.
A fantastic map from what I’ve seen. Air maps have recently been visually pleasing. I hope they continue.
Having hills and valleys you can hide in makes it so much easier, especially in stock grinds, even when I was stock I almost always got a kill on this map
On the subject of the oversized trees; It’d be interesting to have a map full of california redwood trees that actually do grow to these ridiculous sizes. I’m sure that would get the snail in hot water somewhere, though.
I hypothesize that current trees are so absurdly huge is to simplify the process of populating maps with them. Larger trees mean fewer meshes to put on the ground, saves on space and computing power. Would be nice to have smaller trees, though.
Would prefer to see a significant rework or complete overhaul to how Air RB objectives and gameplay is handled too. Smaller teams with respawns, and focused singular objectives are a good place to start. I know respawns in Air RB are an unpopular idea, but the only way for objectives to actually matter is to make TDM the least effective way to win games. Respawns are the most effective solution to that.
BlockquoteRemoving the context of what I said to attempt a “gotcha” is lazy. You should know well enough the person I was responding to mixed those two aspects. It doesn’t suddenly become “It can’t be realistic because it’s third person.” The game is and has been a “realistic” game.
the context was no part of those questions and was irrelevant to the intent of them. also not a gotcha unless you are specifally looking for it to be one which is why i phased them exactly the smae and only switched out one word as not not lean the quesiton.
its like thos commercials that say 4 in 5 dockors recomend our product, which is the historically or what was “measured”, and the realism is they made specifically sure that 4 would say yes and 1 would say no. so they skewed the data and extrapolated it out to cover a wider popuation that didnt get asked
the question to insinuate their point. but the fact in the realism and the historically 4/5 doctors agreed is the overlap you brushed off even tough the way he worded that part was one sided.
also yeah he mixed those aspects because historical acuracy and realism has overlap even though when taken in its entierty they can point in different directions.
ok let me break it down.
the 50k+ car is the old meta. its not the the best but it works for most people and planes and you could give it some tweaks and make it better and up its value for less that they the car was bought for . the lada and the issetta is the new meta where it caters to specific people and planes, and only in its specific use case. it can be upgraded but it will take alot more money and time that will over shadow the actual value and usefullness of the original car.
Trees, along with most other Air map objects, desperately need to be redone, especially to fix their absurd scale. Even objects on the new map are crazy, like the building-sized “small” boats.
Multipathing/etc has made this more important to fix, but it’s always been an issue. It’s absurd to have significantly oversized things in a flying game, where they massively screw with perception of speed and altitude. Especially as it makes you feel like you’re both lower and slower, which is inherently less cool/fun.
Honestly if we dont get these changes soon the community will boycott again. Top tier is absolute complete and utter trash if you dont have aim120’s. Br compression has never been worse than is has now. Gaijin NEEDS to decompress the game SOON.
Was wondering why flying at low alt in DCS feels way more fun than WT… guess that explains it
I had noticed some trees and stuff being way too stupidly large a while ago. I don’t know if they can fix it by just changing the tree models and it applies to the entire map but I really hope they can.
Perhaps a new cap? Hard to explain my idea, but perhaps add a whole new Reserve and BR tree after ~13.0
Any aircraft after that point can start at the new tier and have Fox 3s, but be incapable of facing lower aircraft without Fox 3s.
Either that or bump up their BRs even more ig
Just really feel like anything without Fox 3s shouldn’t be fighting against Fox 3s…
ARH as some kind of magical split would be silly, especially when the version-of-the-same-thing SARH exists. There are plenty of places where a new type of tech shows up in WT, and none of them have ever had a hard split.
You could make a far stronger case for splitting at the introduction of (IR) missiles, or SARH, or HEAT-FS, or APFSDS, etc.
Fixing ground object scaling and adding stock SARH is all that’s really needed here.