I like the tree level, and multipathing change. I personally just want a radar altimeter for jets that can get them.
1 Like
I assumed you gave me a loaded question. I apologize for that.
My critique of his position is strictly upon him disregarding a realistic aspect due to parts of the game that aren’t realistic/historically accurate. It wasn’t about misleading data.
This is insinuating the car (50k+) had better value than the other options, which is misleading. It would be more understandable and fair to say these are company cars, since you do not own them. In this case, instead of an automatic, they now gave you a manual. The frustration of using something new will put people off, but they will learn how to deal with the change in circumstances. Multipathing was too much of a crutch and would lead to ARH being largely irrelevant and a waste of inventory. It was a change that was long overdue.
Great suggestions all around.
I believe we need a lot more decompression than 13.3. 15.0 or 16.0 BR cap would allow both top tier and mid tier to be decompressed, and both need it.
I got the new F-15C in USA tree, and the stock grind is awful. There has been always a large gap between stock and spaded, but now it’s unbearable. We need chaff stock, and at least some ARHs as well.
I have enabled the option as soon as the update dropped. However I only seem to get smaller matches one in 15 games, and I get those of the 12v12 variety. I can’t say if those smaller games have been any better than 16v16, haven’t played enough of them yet. I don’t I got a 8v8 a single time. They should just remove 16v16 for top tier and make 12v12 the new “big” lobby.
I agree, trees need to be smaller. If not for gameplay then at least for how stupid they look now.
1 Like
Great post, I hope and pray that Gaijin sees this
1 Like
I once proposed a dynamic matchmaker but i don’t know if the game can handle it … But i think it would still be another way to solve many problems with the actual compression
It was like : First 30 seconds is searching for a +0.3/-0.3 match, then it search for another 30 sec a +0.7/-0.7 match, and then it search for +1.0/-1.0
It would be a nice middle ground between a not too long MM search time and a balanced game.
1 Like
Its not like there issues with Air Rb entire Br bracket starting from reserve… how about not forgetting about them too this game is not only top tier.
Low BRs would also benefit from a reworked Air RB
2 Likes
Yeah, because playing bombers and other vehicle classes straight up requires no skill, as literally evident by the fact that there was issues with literal bots bombing constantly.
Something that requires very little/ close to no skill at all and can be done by an autohotkey script should NEVER influence the outcome of a match. Its fine giving small rewards ot make the vehicle classes able to do something but thats about it.
If you want an attacker to influence match outcome, you need to make the AI similarly hard to kill as a player, without the Ai griefing everyone else at the same time, which is straight up not happening.
ARB has been TDM since I’m playing the game (~10 years), even when bombers were extremely overpowered for some time frame most matches ended on kills.
That is partially true, but the main issue is just that the skill ceiling of BVR is so extremely much lower than for WVR combat, that they’re not even comparable in terms of the needed mechanical skill, reaction times and awareness.
An overall MUCH lower skill way of playing should not be the more effective way to play the game.
I agree that flying below 100m altitude didn’t exactly take much skill either, but what it did allow for is to get into VERY skill-influenced close range engagements against multiple enemies extremely reliably, and fighting any 1vX dogfight takes MCUH more skill than anythign BVR will ever take, especially if during that whoel dogfight you still have to pay attention about the 100m ceiling.
The same case now, anything without AMRAAM is not competetive right now. All the other ARHs are so much worse that whatever team is carrying more 120s essentially wins currently, with minim al influence by the player quality.
I’d not be opposed to make AB just a RB TDM mode (so none of the trash AB objectives), with RB flight models (arcade FMs are garbage to use, and not distinguished enough), no reloads and respawns and actual gameplay-oriented game mechanics, however that is essentialyl what RB already was. Why ask for a change to a mode that already fullfills most of those criteria, instead of asking for a mode like RB EC, or simply playing sim?
Not at all, there just is very little realism in this “realistic” game, those were just some examples.
How often does an F-16 irl pull 14Gs? And how many pilots can cope with those G forces for 20+ seconds before blacking out? How many of those pilots wake up after blacking out after an exact timer? How often do you directly look at a 20m long aircraft thats 1km away and it straight up is invisible in reality? How often are air combat engagements pure 16v16 air superiority battles, especially without AWACS?
All of those are game mechanics in place to make gameplay more fast-paced, dynamic and more generally enjoyable. So is multipathing. Its not about realism, its about having actually balanced, dynamic, skill based and fun gameplay.
100% agree. ARH split without effective MP would literally just make every plane without 27ERs completely uncompetetive. You move ERs to thr ARHs, then every plane withotu 7M/F is uncompetetive etc; goes that way down all the way to non PD radars.
3 Likes
This is a game about military vehicles and believe it or not, attackers and bombers served a major role as military vehicles. Sure, it requires next to zero investment attacking the A.I. or bases aside from not bombing yourself or becoming a lawn decoration. However, the trade in aerial capability for different roles leaves you vulnerable to fighters. Surviving in a less capable vehicle is a skill, not even you can deny this.
Attackers and bombers should have a reasonable impact to a match that doesn’t overshadow other roles. This requires a complete redesign of missions and their objectives. Some example of which are:
-Fighters: Destroy all aircraft (Players). There will be no air A.I. Obviously an easy win condition everyone knows.
-Attackers: Destroy all ground units in a specific sector. There are multiple sectors.
-Bombers: Destroy Strategic Targets. Radar Stations, auxiliary airfields, etc, something that will impact the enemy in some form.
For attackers and bombers, accomplishing most of these objectives will lead to an objective victory. This gives an obvious motivation to fighters to stop them, while giving purpose to other roles. The objectives, as they are now, do not promote variety which again leads to the mode being stale. This game should not be about fighters only. It is overglorified and absolutely boring.
LMAO. For IRCCM, I just needed to slot behind people. Not hard with a 100m blanket. For dogfights where I have the numerical advantage, I break off just to attack the distracted target from a better angle. For dogfights I have a disadvantage, I better hope every single enemy is too ignorant of their options to kill me and hope they continue to turn endlessly. Again, since you value these aspects, go to play in the BRs where this is more common. Modern combat isn’t like this, you would be foolish to state otherwise.
Wild statement, you certainly do not understand what something being “realistic” actually means.
-What’s the structural limit of an airframe safety limited to 9g? Its 13.5g. While pilots would not often over g their airframe like we do here, the structural failure limitations are implemented. I’m sure you’ve broken flaps or oversped wings. I guess that’s not realistic.
Prime example of not understanding what it is to be “realistic”. The aspect of G load and greyout/blackout is realistic, it is a thing that happens in the real world. However, how it is implemented is not accurate, something purposely done for gameplay.
You must have terrible eyesight if you cannot see a fighter aircraft at 1km. In War Thunder, it is oversimplified possibly due to engine limitations.
Outside of Operation Bolo, I do not remember anything close recently. People don’t like 16v16 in the first place and want it smaller for higher BR battles anyway, so this is kind of pointless to bring up.
A good way to tell me you players lack experience adequately fighting this missile.
1 Like
Why didn’t you add a poll to vote for reverting multipath instead of tree size? I bet a bunch of people would be interested in it, but you probably don’t. That’s why I don’t find interesting to have some random as a “voice” for changes, they have their own interests that a lot of times don’t align with what people actually want.
And one more thing, stock ordinance for attackers/strike aircraft.
Stock grinding something like a Jag or harrier is stupid hard since you can’t do the one thing you’re supposed to except for strafing light things that any other fighter can
Feel free to make a poll about it. The points presented in this poll would make Air RB enjoyable even with the 60m multipath.
1 Like
I just want to add, that I’m only for the smaller team sizes IF literally all other changes go though.
Decompression and stock grind should be top priority to fix, then you can make smaller matches a thing.
Making trees smaller is another thing that should absolutely be done.
1 Like
The real problem is the multipath nerf, if wasn’t for that we wouldn’t need all those band-aid fixes. IDK how it isn’t obvious enough. But hey, a couple of people want to SPAMRAAM from space and kill 12.7s for free so let’s keep 60m multipath yippie.
5 Likes
Its only skill as long as your survival isn’t purely dependent on the fact that you just get lucky with no one engaging you, or that you get an airspawn where no one can actually reach you in time (see F.222.2).
Surely surviving in something like an AD-4 while you ground pound does take soem skill, when you actually get engaged by people.
Flying in a straight line off your airspawn and surving because no one can be bothered to actually climb up or theres no plane left that can (see B-29 on Norway when it was added, regular occurence of some guy just sitting in orbit in some corner of the map doing absolutely nothing) doesn’t.
Yeah and now you have to press 1 button and turn slightly.
Quite literally getting into a launch position for an IR alone takes more skill than anythign does in BVR combined. That is not to speak of that surviving in a chaotic 1vX situation while gettign kills at the same time takes IMMENSE amounts of skill, BVR takes essentially none of those skills, the only time you need some skill is when someone doesn’t get spotted, doesnt get picked up by your radar and doesn’t get launched on by a teammate, and they’re at a close enough range (which will already be WVR regardless) where you actually have to react quickly to avoid their missile.
The F-16s FBW hard limits it to 9G overloads almost no matter what in reality. So no, pilots don’t over G the F-16 pulling 14Gs.
So is multipathing. Its realistic and happens to every radar, it just happens to be implemented in the game as an inaccurate version, for gameplay purposes.
A mechanic should ALWAYS be tuned for gameplay instead of realism in a game.
Yeah tell me how competetive planes are when the enemy has missiles that have 2/3rds of the time to target, IOG+DL, better maneuverability, and the same launch range, in a SARH meta.
Quite literally you can never stop defending, because the enemy plane can just push you permanently defensive, as you can’t guide your missile in, so they don’t even have to ever defend.
Yeah you can defeat their ER, trash your missile, and the second you try to re-engage you just get launched on again.
Not even talking about the fact that the plane that launches the ER can defend, re-commit and still kill you.
And even in the absolute worst case scenario, the ER carrier can always force the trade.
It doesn’t matter how much “”““experience””“”" you have in adequately fighting the missile, when its literally superior in every single way, and the planes that carry it also have more of them.
If it was so easy to “adequately” fight the missile with Aim-7s, why didn’t you just climb in the previous meta, defending from the ERs, using the Sparrows to ensure your position, to then launch 9Ms top down at people below, for a much better hit rate, and less risk of dying to an IRCCM missile?
5 Likes
It does not work like that for IRCCM. All that was required was fly low for about 4 minutes, then climb high and attack people from above. There was really nothing overly skillful about it aside from positioning. Flares from rear aspect rarely save you. I will ensure it.
You’re again talking about a skill that doesn’t apply as often to the higher BRs. You being upset about ARH being a completely different playstyle is a non-issue. I guarantee when I jump into top tier again in about a week, I will have zero issues fighting aggressively against players over-reliant on their missiles unless I am playing like a bot. ARH with the subsequent multipath change is a skill filter and it is certainly showing those how were overeliant on their crutch.
Safety. Override.
Yes, it is currently inaccurate, as it’s still slightly too high (though acceptable for now), so be careful what you argue here. This mechanic was used as a crutch to defeat radar missiles with near impunity. There was much less risk going low than it was going high. Now players have to actively defend and be cognizant of these missiles. It is a skill that people don’t want to learn for some reason, even though this should have been a skill since PD was a thing.
I’ll do you one better; pre-buff 530Ds vs 27ERs. I have a fantastic kill ratio with the Mirages and I fly those at about 17,000ft nearly every match. Whenever I see an “M29” lock/launch, I am already at 3-9. They know I’m there, they will hunt me down, yet their 27ERs get trashed. Every. Single. Time. I know when I need to go offensive and it almost always results in my victory over the Fulcrum or Flanker. I do the same to every other aircraft when at altitude. Then, when I am uncontested, I kill as many low flyers as is safe to do so. I have zero problems doing this, I went low to abuse the multipath mechanic, and I went high when situations allowed. I survive more often than not either way.
All you seem to focus on is the hard factors, where I understand the nuances and defensive tactics needed to win against those that are “superior”. Forcing engagements when you are at an obvious disadvantage is why so many people do poorly.
A question: How will you add stock AAM for J-8F as it have only 2 FOX-3 PL-12 in total? Also rear-aspect PL-5B and non-IRCCM PL-8
Thats just straight up wrong. I dislike IRCCM too, but saying that there’s “nothign skillful” about it is completely wrong. The DEFYN video demonstrates it quite well.
It is a skill that SHOULD be applying to any BR, because the ability to win 1vX is what makes carrys a possibility.
The F16s FBW has no override. This discussion has been had plentiful when the F-16 was added and whent he FM was changed. Its a pure gameplay choice over having the FM be “realistic” because a FBW limit would be trash for overall gameplay.
Its a skill literally every good player in the game has already learned, but they’re aware that the way that changes gameplay is just bad for the game dynamic, which is why you see basically every single one of the best top tier Air RB players in the game dislike the MP change, despite them still being good at the game.
Thats a sure way to ensure that youre completely fucking useless until the guy merges with you.
Which is also the reason why you have low kills per battle in them, relative to your KDs. Killing less than 2 people per battle in top tier is just ass, if the goal is to just get a high KD you may aswell just launch missiles at the start and then run back to base instead of playing the game.
For the general gameplay health of the game its generally just better if people play more overly aggressive, than overly passive, passive gameplay is just extremely boring to everyone involved, and requires much less skill overall. The game would literally be unplayable if every shitter just spammed all their ARHs from 30km, and then turned around and ran to the airfield, we’ve literally been there already in the past when the F-14 was added.
I’ll be the first person to admit that I play overly aggressive in high tier, but forcing people to play passive is just bad for the entire gameplay.
It doesnt even have anythign to do with knowledge, it only matters if the person withthe ERs has brain deficiency or not. The second you go offensive, the guy can just launch at the same time as you, and will still win, if they have hands at all.
3 Likes
There already was a poll about that during the dev server. People mostly wanted it to be reverted, but Gaijin only put it up to 60m.
I personally prefer 60m multipathing, I like that people cannot simply sit on the deck anymore and be impervious to FOX-1s and FOX-3s. The issues I discussed in this post are things I think we should have in game anyways, and they make using the 60m multipathing hight much easier.
Removing the multipathing nerf would be an overcorrection imo. Eg. Having both lower trees AND 100m multipathing is an overcorrection.
Overall, I feel that the multipathing nerf deserves a thread all on its own. This thread is more in response to the 60m multipathing change and ARHs at top tier, not how multipathing should be changed.
If you want a poll on multipathing, please feel free to make a post about it. I am interested in those results as well. But when it comes to this thread, I wanted to discuss ways to aleviate the multipathing nerf while keeping it around (since it’s something a lot of people hate and a lot of people like).
2 Likes
Stock missiles have long been needed. I get it, part of WT’s monetization is for the grind but there is a limit. At lower tiers, you’re outmatched in performance but with a bit more time spent climbing you can get yourself somewhat competitive. At top tiers, you’re screwed. You’re taking 2 non-IRCCM fox 2s up against aircraft with 6-10 ARH or IRCCM missiles and countermeasures that will immediately invalidate your own missiles. Absolutely needs to be at minimum: Stock IRCCM x2, stock SARH x2.
Tree height, and the scale of the game in general, is comical. We have maps like Alaska where the design is “middle of nowhere, followed by middle of nowhere, followed by a handful of small buildings, followed by skyscrapers that are in competition for the tallest buildings in the world”
Then you have the city map, which at first glance looks like a more reasonable city, until you realise that the buildings are taller than the tallest building in the world.
Match size needs tweaked, and has for a while. Lower tiers, WWII specifically, could honestly even go up in player count and be fine. I find they benefited a lot from 16v16 in how it helps the scale. All that’s left is (IMO) giving all aircraft air spawns and creating more dynamic objectives to help alleviate the bore that is Climb Thunder.
In the higher tiers however, the count needs to be flipped. Kills should be more seldom, but reward you more. 6-8 people per match, preferably spread out in pairs across the map (Ex: 2 spawn in grid zone A-2, 2 spawn in A-4, 2 spawn in A-6, 2 spawn in A-8).
Finally, BR compression (I know I’ve taken these all out of order, screw it lol). At this point we’re beyond the point of raising BRs to fix the game. It’s gone without decompression for too long that the entire system is compressed, and most attempts to decompress in one spot have led to another spot getting compressed further. At this point, keep it at 13.0 but reduce the spread to 2 or 3 “blocks” instead.
Explanation: Right now we have 1.0, 1.3, 1.7, 2.0, 2.3, 2.7, 3.0, and so on. Each match has 4 “blocks” of battle ratings. Reduce that to 3, so a 1.7 can see down to 1.0 or up to 2.3.
To keep this math a little simpler and declutter the tree, redo the battle ratings. 1.3 becomes 1.5. 1.7 becomes 2.0, 2.0 becomes 2.5 and so on. Now you can allow 2.0 to see down to 1.0 and up to 3.0, creating the 3 “block” spread, making it much easier on the eyes whilst immediately easing up the compression.