How about instead of 10% less, it is just 10% of the original reward (or nerfing multipath height so you can’t multipath your way in a straight line to a base)
That’ll fix the zombers :)
There is currently 0 risk for a high reward for fighters with bombs, being faster than attackers, they can just multipath their way to an enemy base within minutes while the much slower attackers are forced to wait for over 7 minutes for the bases to respawn
There rarely are “fighters” only, and often in WT the classification is to be taken with a grain of salt and very simplified or even wrong (see e.g. Milan classified as Fighter).
My personal view as a player: aircraft that are multirole and IRL able to carry and employ air to ground weaponry should of course be able to do so also in WT!
How that fits into the game is a question of BR-placement, decompression, gameplay development, etc., but should not affect the capability of aircraft by restricting their loadouts artificially and unrealistically.
The thing is, take for example the F-4C and A-7D. The A-7D has a similar (if not lighter) payload as the F-4C, has only 2 AAM compared to the 8 of the F-4C, and is significantly slower meaning that not only can it not get to a base before its fighter counterpart but it also can’t get as many air kills as the F-4C
That is certainly so, but using this as argument to strip the A/G weapons of the Phantom - an aircraft that is fixed in history as very much multi role - would be inacceptable, I find.
As I said, this should be adressed, e.g. by decompression or other means, but certainly not by nerfing loadout options.
And I’s also like to mention yet again, that if one likes to play in the attacker role, or attacker aircraft, AB and RB are in many cases quite unsuitable game modes, whereas for exactly those aircraf that struggle in AB/RB, Sim EC is where they really excel and can be enjoyed when used in their intended role.
Mig-21 was designed to intercept bombers. So should it get reduced rewards for fragging fighters?
Or should it get no reduced rewards because later Mig-21 was designed for strike missions?
Artificially nerfing rewards based on subjective interpretations is bad and is a hypocrisy that will have people correctly get angry at.
People don’t like arbitrary rules founded on nothing but feelings.
Removing ticket bleed after all enemy players are dead would also be possible fix with minimum effort required.
So you want matches to drag on for the full 25 minutes?
It would be optional.
Strike planes would have reason to survive the “air superiority” phase and help their team.
In “ground strike phase” fighters then could land and either rearm and participate, or just leave the game and let strike aircrafts happily pound ground.
Both sides get what they want.
Sorry, but I find your post is a perfect illustration of hypocracy:
If you don’t want to lose the match, then DON’T PLAY BOMBERS yourself.
If you want to play bombers and win the match, then play arcade battles.
But your post demands: Make the others carry me!
Isn’t Mig-21 technically designed as a fighter/interceptor (i.e. both)?
imo the variants later designed for strike missions would then be multirole as previously described.
Interceptors is in general a valid point brough up though, i say no. It’s designed to shoot down things that fly so should in that case get incentivised rewards for all things that fly, i don’t think differentiating there would make much sense gameplay wise as you cannot guarantee targets of the “correct” nature in the same way you can for Attackers/Bombers.
It wouldn’t be nerfing, hence my usage of the word “incentivize” and not “discourage”. Increased rewards for actions based on role and not decreased rewards for actions outside of role.
Though if both are done simultaneously it probably wouldn’t be either a “nerf” nor a “buff” and just balance. It is possible to change the rewards in such a way where the increase for actions within role is compensated by the decrease in rewards for actions outside of role resulting in a net zero.
It wouldn’t be, it would be based on the aircrafts designations and IRL purpose (to the extent that it is possible). Edge cases would of course exist and could be handled on a case by case basis but i don’t think there would be many of those to be honest.
iRL aircraft designations are arbitrary as well.
“F-117” Fighter 117…
Wasn’t a fighter… It wasn’t even initially the thing the United States Air Force wanted from the project.
Of course that’s just the easiest example to bring up, though there are dozens to hundreds more.
If you go off of real militaries, then F-117 gets a nerf to strike rewards.
If you give Gaijin the liberty to judge for themselves, anger will occur.
If you apply double standards, anger will occur.
Even if you hired the best military aviation historian in the world, players will disagree with his judgement [if he’d even agree to pass judgement anyway].
So ultimately, the rewards shouldn’t be discriminated aircraft to aircraft. The status quo is the best solution in this instance, where Gaijin designations only impact if vehicles get an ammo box, spawn at 1500 meters, spawn at 3000 meters, or 5000 meters.
The point of War Thunder is to let people choose. And they already have incentives based on their aircraft.
There’s a point, removing A2G weapons options for fighters is a buff to the “run and hide in the airfield SPAA bubble” “tactic” as currently the only counter tactic is to burn their tickets down via ground pounding.
A very easy way to improve the situation would be to add a “personal” target, to any plane designed as bomber, that randomly appear on the map and it’s only visible (and damaged) by the “owner”.
If that is all you change, then the fundamental problem remains: It doesn’t matter to the game, just the grinding bomber. Basically, you could just add a mode “gain RP and SL” where you press “to battle” and receive the average bombing mission reward plus a 10 min Warthunder ban. Same effect except no stress about team kills, “they stole MY base”, packet loss, whatever. And way less “we lost due to the bombing players”. ;-)
I haven’t spoken about IRL designations. And War Thunder doesn’t use the IRL designations to give vehicles their in-game classes either as far as i know. At least not consistently.
Go by current in-game classes with some minor changes perhaps.
They have already given the planes in-game classes, if those are used there shouldn’t be much of an issue. Exceptions will of course still exist and those can be bug-reported.
I don’t know any discrepancies between the in-game classes on the top of my head. Feel free to correct me.
I disagree, in my opinion the current system causes more player dissatisfaction than i believe my idea would cause. But i could be wrong, players tend to be annoyed about very odd things in the game (as i’m sure you already know). This probably wouldn’t be any different in that regard.
I do think its a waste to bomb in a fully capable fighter, however in reality this is a problem with the current modes and how premiums are used.
Buy a premium instead of playing the TT, get put at a higher BR where players are generally better, keep dying while trying to fight, so you settle for basebombing since its much easier than learning and much more consistent.
Premiums should be locked behind a level or rank wall honestly, or at least the game should teach you the core mechanics in mid-high tier. Even I used to base bomb w/ the AV-8S (E) instead of wanting to learn how to dogfight or use missiles properly.
And ARB needs a rework so strike aircraft actually have targets they can hit, and that they actually do something. Bombing bases right now does basically nothing.
I think a lot of dissatisfaction stems from knowledge issues. The rest comes from airframe issues.
If I’m in Kfir Canard [which I don’t have but I have C2 and C7], and I’m using it correctly, I’m going to beat Bucc S2B in a downtier, I’m going to beat every other fighter and strike aircraft to a base except F-111F.
However, if I’m in Buccaneer. I have base and static target options while the Kfir only has base options.
This is down to bomb count. Or rocket count in the case of F-4E.
I was in a conversation with someone a few months back that thought bases were their only option in their strike aircraft. I can’t remember the strike aircraft.
What I can remember is I tried convincing them that static targets were a valid target for the plane, and that was dismissed.
Tornado prefers static targets over bases.
Bucc can do either.
F-111C prefers fighting other jets.
F-111F prefers bases.
Kfir can only do bases.
F-4E prefers static targets.
F-4FG1/FGR2 prefers bases [and is faster than the F-4E].
Su-25 prefers fighting other jets.
Su-25T prefers static targets.
A-10 prefers fighting other jets and static targets.
Harrier 2 prefers fighting other jets.
Having played so, so many bombers… I’ve learned their quirks and their competition…
On the issue of harming player rewards, even if you paint the harm as a bonus in a silver lining.
War Thunder has a negative history of unfair rewards as-is, there are many posts that love claiming double standards where it doesn’t exist.
If you give players that are neutral or negative ammunition to use, they will be loud.
personal targets would be just like normal bases in both reward and ticket bleed and the enemy would still be able to intercept you before you reach it.
If you don’t like bombers (just like 95% of the players), don’t play them.
I am very skeptical of and opposed to the current system WT uses, because it’s way too coarse and in many cases outright wrong.
My prime example is always ADATS, this literally means Air Defense and Anti Tank System. In WT it is now classified as SPAA, when it was introduced it was classified as Tank Destroyer, and thus lacked perks like Artillery and air kills didn’t count towards e.g. air defense tasks.
Especially with more modern equipment that also doesn’t hold up well, as there are more and more multirole (Dassault even marketed the Rafale for a while as “omnirole” - specialized to fulfill every role…) aircraft: F/A-18’s are classified as fighters, not as the fighters/attackers they actually are. And the same applies for basically everything in top tiers, Rafales, Typhoons, F-16’s, etc…
Or, again an example that I keep bringing, the Dassault Milan, a Mirage variant specifically developed as attacker, which in WT is classified as Fighter. This specifically keeps confusing players which purchase that aircraft, then realize it fares very badly as fighter, then complain about that fact.
In conclusion to those discrepancies, artificially nerfing some aircraft because of those arbitrary classifications is not the way to go, in my personal view.
Yes, some vehicles do better in some game modes and worse in others, with other vehicles it’s the other way round. I really think the community should get away from the idea that every vehicle has to be equally useful / good / playable in all game modes. I don’t believe that’s possible…
Wasn’t that just an attempt to get better pilots to actually sign up to fly it as they usually tried to avoid bombers as much as posable so they designated it a fighter to bait them into wanting to fly it or something?