IMO it is frustrating when you need to land to refuel or re-arm and someone kills without any effort. You cannot put a good fight and I cannot see any fun in this.
On the other hand I understand that the opposite team takes the oppty to win and end the battle.
It sounds like if FIFA would decide to cancel the offside rule in soccer. It would give the advantage to the strikers, for both teams. Thus defenders would become obsolete and no club would use defenders anymore.
That is what happens in ARB, there is no point playing strikers or bombers I believe.
The other day I was trying to land ON THE MAIN AIRFIELD for refueling, one f5 arrived on my six, we were turning around the airfield at low speed trying to kill each other softly, airfield missiles were going banana everywhere but to him. This was going on for like 2 min until my engine switched off. He killed me and he didnt even have to dodge any missile. I was wondering if it was a bug.
why is turning airfield AA off a solution to you, but fixing game mode so that aircraft designed for anything else but aerial superiority arent useless isnt?
and since you are acknowledging a-10 is useless, maybe we should reduce its br? how about 9.3🤡
will you tell me to play game modes with attention span of a tiktok user or jelly wobble physics? maybe that i should spend 2 years grinding tanks so i can play one aircraft?
this my man is toxic, not seeking cover on airfield
No, even wt wiki says that Air RB has different objectives:
Summary
Realistic Battles
Aviation:
Realistic mode is designed for more experienced players. More realistic damage models, flight models, and physics makes gameplay less forgiving, and aircraft fly much more similarly to their historical counterparts, with their strengths and weaknesses more apparent than in Arcade mode. Also, once all ammunition and ordnance are expended, players will have to return to their airfield to reload, and there is no ‘leading marker’ to assist with aiming. In this mode, unlike Arcade, teams often feature aircraft from specific nations, making gameplay more accurately reflect historical encounters such as the Battle of Stalingrad, fought between the USSR and Germany, or the Battle of Midway, fought between the Japanese Empire and the US. These historical scenarios will all have different objectives similar to the battles they represent, such as destroying a German tank advance at Kursk or repelling a Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.
…and nothing about Air RB being a PvP mode only. Funnily enough a return to the airfield is mentioned in wt wiki.
But the fellow player is not wrong regarding his general view on things - above certain BRs playing strike aircraft makes no sense as every fighter can fulfil the same tasks and can contribute to the efforts of his team to win the match by killing other fighters; a strike aircraft like the discussed A-10 is simple not capable of making a significant impact in a mode being mostly decided by PvP actions - and not by playing PvE in a mode that is at the end of the day de facto a TDM mode…
I dont know from where are you coming with this.
Im just saying that in a gamemode focused on facing other players in planes, the planes that are designed to destroy other planes will always render useless planes designed to destroy ground targets or drop bombs.
This will always be the case no matter what you do.
Also I’m the toxic guy here who drops clown emojis?
And im not saying strike aircraft need a new game mode, no no, what im saying is that fighters merely win air superiority, while the victory conditions should be focused on the tickets, and with victory conditions no longer affecting the amount of players alive on each team, there is absolutely no reason to fly around enemy airfield.
as for either team having 0 players - it wouldnt hurt to have a respawn mechanic and maybe somewhat bigger maps with more airfields
Stuff written on the wiki can just simply not match the truth of the game. Again, the wiki is written by players and entirely rests on the interpretation of players.
In this specific case, someone likely read that the Wyvern has a “turboprop” engine and confused it with it having a “turbocharger” with good high altitude performance, despite the fact that the Wyvern is strongest the lower you go.
A reference page like wiki is an extension of the official web site - clearly referenced by the main page:
You can find the list of all currently available vehicles at wiki-page: wiki.warthunder.com
and therefore of course sanctioned and approved officially. So the content is therefore to be seen as “official”.
Mentioning the content of a forum (in which individuals present their own opinions) or the distinction PvP vs PvE in an internal screen like this:
is nonsense as PvP in this context simply says: Players fight Players in total opposition to game modes like air assault or helicopter PvE in which the “PvE” is used to say: You won’t fight players.
The main purpose of a forum is besides getting help/support also the exchange with others based on own opinions. So it is logical that forum posts by players are no “official” gaijin statements.
The difference to wt wiki is obvious so your reply is simply distracting from the fact that we talk about two different things:
How wt describes the ways of how the game can be played
How wt is actually played
And as i share your view on the usefulness of A-10s - i simply don’t understand why you try to create conflicts with actually useless examples regarding point #1 if we have a common understanding about the decisive point #2.
Although i really appreciate your replies in general - imho your example simply proves that there is a complete absence of any kind of quality controls within gaijin and another confirmation that the low budget approach of gaijin (using volunteers/players for actually necessary/important functions) is not really showing satisfactory results.
I mean this discussion is purely academic, but in case we talk about a trial based on Comsumer Protection Laws the statements within wt homepage and links from them like in this case wt wiki - gaijin is fully reliable for the content if they don’t add disclaimers. So the principle of Dictum et promissum or material statement will be decisive in any case - if they describe the product wrong or promise facts that the product cannot fulfil - they will lose.
I remember a car brochure 25 years ago - advertising a Chrysler minivan able to carry a specific Harley D.- and the bike was modified to fit in without a disclaimer…
If the forward Af was capture capable and thus turned off the AAA at the main AF, that would solve a problem of single player holding the winning team till the timer or tickets run out. Also while a plane is capturing the forward af it could allow the defenders to prevent said capture
