About that…
No, especially when there are strike aircraft that are better as fighters [F-111C and Ayit], and fighters whose purpose is being a strike aircraft [Kfir and Mig-27].
I feel like the comment for morvran could be solved by just reclasifiying the aircraft. (Sense gaijin doesn’t care bout what type of vehicle something is irl. {ex: M18})
Side note; the A-10s make excellent close quarter dog fighting planes. I have some of my highest KDs on them.
Or they could just give a perma -event or something , dogfight mode, that goes around air superiority missions. So they can justify only A-A weapons .
And while on that , make a re-classification on what’s a fighter and what’s a multi-role and what’s a strike fighter.
For example , F-15E is a multi-role. It retained the capabilities of Superiority fighter from the A/C , but they added Strike capabilities… F-111 is a strike plane. A-10/Su-25 are CAS planes primarily.
In dogfight mode , Strike planes , CAS planes not allowed .
And for bombers/ strikers etc. make a Ground strike mode with SIM spawn method…Who ever bleeds the opponents points first wins. Just make more targets. Yes you can kill another plane, it won’t net points - but you slow the enemy down. I could say of more complicated missions, but for start that will work.
In this mode, no classified as Interceptor/Superiority fighters allowed. Multies with FORCED A-G set up yes.And Ofc bombers…
Current RB was made in mind with OBJECTIVES that could (At a point ) win you the fight… Ex. Bombers could end the game if you didn’t intercept them. People didn’t like it. Instead we forced RB to be a dogfight mode… which still isn’t because it doesn’t have rules.
You can’t tell anybody what to play. And as i prefer to farm points for events as F/B-multi because it nets you more than the average fighter only and preferably with less effort and time (because the game alone gets tiring after a point) , i’m the same person that in the gunfight event i played ONLY the event and still prefers air to air when i’m not grinding events (which i don’t have time pressure and i can sit my azz and focus on playing good - even if won’t have the optimum points ).
Do you know what the BASIC problem is?
People won’t want that , to have separate and actual modes with rules and objectives (even simplistic).
That’s why instead of asking proper game modes , we ask of limiting what the others do (what happened with bombers) and try to make RB a dogfight mode …instead of just ask a dogfight mode.
But i think they’ll fix something of it with Aerial Warfare mode…Let’s see how that goes.
2 words, stock grind. beyond that I do agree. I would like my F-104S TAF to be at a BR where it’s actually playable for air to air, not kept at a ridiculous BR because people use it as a bomb bus.
But that said I’m not for forcing people to play a certain way, as @Morvran said it needs to be rewards based to incentivize people to actually play their roles.
There are quite a few suggestions in this thread on the topic:
A better option in my opinion would be to have the RP/SL rewards for specific actions be based on type of vehicle. Fighters get more for destroying planes (even AI ones), Attackers get more for destroying ground units and slightly more for bases and Bombers get more for destroying bases and slightly more for ground units. (Edit: Maybe even introduce a new class for modern planes; “Multirole”. That class would be more balanced in rewards as those planes are designed for all those tasks)
I don’t agree with the idea of limiting munition choices per game mode. IMO It’s generally better to incentivize the action you want players to take instead of punishing/removing the one you don’t want. I’m in general against the idea of removing player agency but also understand the frustration of playing vehicles designed for specific actions just for other planes that are not designed for those actions to remove your choice of taking that action.
Introducing a “Multirole” class would probably to some degree solve this.
@tensilaspider
Neither of those change the actual issue: Anti-player punishments for player decisions.
That is the major issue, the other issue being punishing F-111C pilots for playing their aircraft correctly, or Kfir pilots, is a secondary issue to punishing players period.
This wouldn’t be punishing though imo, it would be incentivizing player to play the role the plane was designed for, even if it, at its BR (due to WT not having historical matchups), can be better at a role it was not designed for. My gut feeling tells me those planes are only better at the roles they weren’t IRL designed for due to the BR matchmaker nature of WT.
Uncertain about this part but it does at first glance make logical sense to me:
If changes to rewards based on roles were to be implemented then the effectiveness of planes would also by default change and BR changes might be needed to make up for it. Then those planes that perform better outside their role might no longer do so after adjustments.
No.
It isn’t a problem of fighters with bombs, plus many jets marked as “fighters” in the game in reality are fighter-bombers.
Imo the main issue is a lack of targets to bomb and napalm meta, there should be bases which you can fully destroy only with bombs.
If you take away fighters’ bombing ability, you won’t be able to play as a bomber at all, because all the fighters that were bombed will be hunting from that point on. ARB isn’t a bomber mode. Try ASB if you want to bomb.
Stupid idea. If fighters can’t bomb, Near you,what happens when the enemy has no planes?
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.
