Call it skill issue, or that I’m a bad player. Well, I’m a bad player and there’s lots of players just like me. And lots of us with deep pockets sustaining the game.
But there is literally only one playstyle in top tier Air RB, which is to fly to the space with a F14 or something like it. In my game, I have roughly 40% chance of reaching a base, 70% in killing one ground target before dying for a Fakour-90 missile (depends on the traffic of players to be honest, there are hours where it is easier).
According to the Gaijin store, AV-8B (11.3), F-4S (12.0), F-20A (12.7), MiG-23ML (11.7) are top-sellers, and I see no shortage of people base bombing with them (implying beginner level). Making it even killing one ground target so hard, is not good for player retention. I am sure the average player, does not think “oh I got clubbed by some Fox-3 from the sky, time to buy a new premium jet!!”, because there is nothing that can compensate for it money wise.
The gap of skill/technology between different players, and their effects on gameplay is too far.
That could be done via reverting multipathing distance to 100m, buffing of chaffs etc. It would diversify the playstyle(s), and cater to more people, not the only few that are playing the meta vehicles playing the exact specific playstyle.
Also, it’s a two way street. currently, these players are clubbing and earning big bucks. Diversifying the playstyle, would reduce the rewards for the clubbers, and distribute it for everyone it else. So it is not “free points”.
It’s not clubbing, it’s players being too lazy to learn how to dodge for 5 minutes, a literal barrel roll will defeat an AIM-54 or F90. Better yet turn around for 4 seconds and they all go to shit.
Learn how to play the tier you are at (Radar/IR shared meta) and you’ll be fine.
Also only one play style in top tier lmao you cannot be more wrong
I think strike aircraft should have more options to do just that. Higher BR’s need bigger maps with more stuff spawned in over an area not just the middle of the map. I like hitting ground targets, and it does help the team having people kill those targets. I’ve won a few games where ive taken out 20 to 30 ground targets and was the last one alive and managed to win the game do to ticket bleed or the time limit reached.
not every plane in the game is designed to dogfight. Some planes a specifically designed for hitting ground targets and don’t dogfight very well. You have two premium jet fighters and basically only play those two. you have no diversity in your game play. Playing the su-25, A-10, tornado, Jaguar, buccaneer or other strike aircraft at higher br you will understand more of the frustration it is to be able to get points in a match.
You fly fighter jets that are very maneuverable, you do not fly slower less maneuverable planes. Buy the su-39 and you will have a better understanding and the frustration it is not playing with a fighter. Until you have actual game experience in things other than fighter your recommendation for “just dodge” is very meaningless.
What are you going to do, fly straight into the missile? If you don’t want to get hit, you have to dodge. You will not dodge a missile without moving, I don’t need to fly the Su-39 to know that.
But you need to have enough of a pull to be able to cause the missile to be dodged as well as enough momentum to keep pushing so that you are not a sitting duck for the next plane coming at you, and on several planes to do that, you need to effectively drop your entire payload.
EG a Buccaneer will very much risk ripping its wings off if it has a full payload and attempts to dodge an aim9L, yet alone any kind of SARH system. A jaguar will lose significant energy doing similar, etc. Most strike aircraft dont have enough engine power to even be able to reset with a clean loadout, current system is effectively hopium you wont get struck/brrrrted trying to hit a base, or ofc hoping that you get to it and dont have a full uptier and fighters carrying bombs which are faster then you without them.
Yes? So you now are turned away, and the enemy plane is still coming at you… you just gave up speed and position to your allies who are going to bomb the bases you were going to bomb. Yet alone the enemy plane which can now just slide in to your flank/rear.
The point you are missing is that bombers/strike planes could use a game shift to make them a bit more useful/viable again, your suggestion doesnt help that, it in fact, shows the issue they have lol.
And I mean, GL trying to do that in a bucc 2b or full speed tornado with full bomb load at 5km range to intercept lol.
Like, currently if your team has a few buccs on it as an example plane (other strike planes also have this issue), your team has a massive disadvantage sadly. Gone are the days when bomber/strike planes could win battles.
I agree with this. I also have a idea in my mind that increasing the multipathing celling again, would actually improve strike planes’ gameplay. Currently there are many F-4S base bombers, so much so that it became a meme. But if they could have some chance not getting sniped by a SARH or ARH missile, why would they turn to base bombing which itself is very inefficient and has relatively low chance of success due to competition and enemy planes. This isn’t saying that we should make the floor a forcefield, but there should be less risk.
Increasing the effectiveness of “grounnd hugging” would probably increase the amount of fighters carrying missiles because they can actaully fight back instead of bombing
Furthermore, in conflicts (you get the idea), it is common for frogfoots to fly low to avoid anti-air attacks where there is no air superiority for the side flying attacker aircrafts, so actually, in a way, this is realistic.
If being ““skilled”” with a specific planes, make it unplayable for signlificant amount of players, then yes. You also offered no counter arguments to my post.
A signlificant part of the players, especially premium ones, carry bombs and many are not level 100. This points to poor player retention. I wonder why?
With all due respect, I do not think the concept of “clubbing” exists at all outside of tier 1, maybe tier 2.
If some experienced pilot goes into a tier 1 biplane arcade match and racks up kills - that’s seal clubbing.
Literal top tier player fighting another top tier player is not.
Also player level is not correlated to skill. I’ve seen level 20 players in sim absolutely wreck level 100s.
And for player retention, wouldn’t most of that player retention manifest many, many, many weeks before they even get to fly a top tier plane? By the time someone has a top tier jet, they’ll have ideally played the game for months.
Seeing your post as a whole you are not asking for diversification - you are asking to lower the standards because you are either unwilling to invest time to learn how the game mechanics work or you are unable to transfer your overall rather high game experience in results which might please you.
On top of that you argue that the fact that you invested some money would be a valid reason that your proposal makes sense as it would support others with similar issues.
2 points to think about:
Just show me one irl example in which lowering standards has produced actual improvements for the beneficiaries of such measures. Example: If you lower educational requirements allowing less smart or ambitious people access to higher education (due to ideological reasons) and degrees you are simply degrading the actual value of the acquired degree for all.
That is one of the reasons why you see so many losers becoming career politicians and corporate employers are doing their own evaluations of job aspirants as the qualification (degree) itself says nothing about actual knowledge.
The pure fact that certain people feel the need to buy certain products despite the fact that they are unable to use them properly is a major business strategy behind this and almost all other similar games.
The average life span (regarding player retention) and the average revenues of their main target group (minors with access to 3rd party credit cards) is rather limited - so the game is optimized to gain as much money as possible in the shortest time span possible. Imho long-term players are not really a cash-cow, simply because of their rather small numbers.
So if from a pure economic perspective gaijin’s strategy is quite successful, there is simply no need to lower standards as long as the player numbers increase and their profits are within their target range.