Bomb Carriers in Air RB: Preparation for future discussion

[Motherhen357]

A few months ago, this section of devblog was released:

@Stona_WT

Bomb Carriers in General

At the moment, most aircraft that primarily bomb bases in Air Battles are as effective, if not more, than fighters of the same Battle Rating, although they often have much weaker weapons and air combat capabilities than fighters.

We’re aware that many of you think that the Battle Rating of bomb carriers in Air Realistic Battles is too high, comparing them with fighters solely in terms of air combat capabilities.

However, on the economy side of things, the Battle Rating of bomb carriers — which are discussed in many topics — are optimal or even underestimated. This means that their weak capabilities for air combat doesn’t prevent them from receiving on average a good or even great reward. As noted above, the average reward is one of the main factors in determining the Battle Rating of a vehicle. Therefore in order for us to be able to reduce the Battle Rating of these aircraft while maintaining healthy economic progression, the rewards for damaging and destroying bases would need to be reduced so that the average reward (the effectiveness) of bombers and fighters is equalized.

We fully realise that a change like this will not receive any support from players who are asking for a reduction in Battle Ratings at the current average reward values.

Therefore in the summer, we’re planning to give more clarification and bring this issue up for discussion — whether or not we should reduce the rewards for bases in order to reduce the Battle Rating of aircraft that mainly bomb bases, or leave everything as it is now.

Therfore, the purpose of this thread is for members of the WT forum community interested in having a say on that topic to create, discuss, and refine their presentations amongst eachother, in this short window leading up to the posting of the upcoming Official Feedback thread.
When that thread is posted, I will lock this one against further replies.

[Motherhen357]

1st version:

/.Begin

In this player 's opinion, the issue w/ the effectiveness of aircraft in Air RB which are primarily used for bombing is that it has become decoupled from the impact of their capabilities.

As noted, aircraft which primarily bomb ( which is not a group exclusively consisting of aircraft classified as bombers ) are generally weaker at performing the in-match task of " destroying all of the enemy team 's player vehicles ".
That task is the one which maximises the amount of interaction between players on opposite teams.
However, the in-match tasks of " destroying all highlighted AI-controlled vehicles " and " destroy enemy base zones " are not performed in a vacuum, separate from the enemy team 's task of destroying player vehicles.

This creates a situation for players of aircraft which primarily bomb where the effort they can make as part of their team is less effective, or cannot be reliably used to interact with the enemy teams players.
And resultingly the optimal use of these aircraft is to avoid interaction with the enemy team players above all else, to instead engage with only the AI-controlled targets where enemy players are not present.

This optimal strategy is effective at maximising rewards, as noted.
It lessens the chances of the bombing aircraft being sent back to the hangar, no longer able to perform actions in the match.
However, the impact of the actions performed while using this optimal strategy of avoidance are much lower than if the player takes a higher risk of interaction.

So for both teams, the bombing aircraft 's player is minimally contributing to the outcome of the match -
their own team now has fewer players able to push the advantage in air combat( which is required to make avoidance of player interaction at the target area viable ), and the enemy team is deprived of targets for their own " destroy enemy players " task to be fulfilled.

For any further reduction in economic rewards for bomb carriers to be considered, there MUST be a plan to counterbalance by increasing the in-match impact of the actions performed by those aircraft.
Further erosion of their viability CANNOT be supported otherwise.

/.End