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?
Make other example.
The problem is A-7D may fare better in A-A than F-4C , CMs alone and it’s more agile in the lows.
F-4C with AIM-7D is…AIM-7D barely works, and 9Es you can evade them without CMs…
A-7Ds , 9Js , if you don’t have CMs you’re done.
But F-4C is better in A-G , yes… it’s faster in the same payload .
You see you picked one of the few examples that the attacker works better as fighter than the fighter and the fighter better than the attacker as attacker!
But that’s all compression and GJ that doesn’t give proper loadouts…
F-4C could have 9J/Ps and 7E/E2s and pod for IR and ECM.
In the state they have it game though…
Many valid points, i think the biggest issues with my proposal (vehicles designed for multiple purposes) can be somewhat solved with a new “multirole” class that doesn’t skew the rewards for specific actions. Either no change in rewards at all or very little in comparison to “pure” vehicles.
Cases like these would then have to be re-evaluated and bug-reported for a change, preferably during some sort of beta test before any potential full release of such a system.
I think it could be a partial way to go, even better if paired with overhauls to current game modes with more diverse options to gain score with (i.e. bases being not one single target that gets damaged the same no matter what part you hit for example).
Fair.
How about adding awards for specific actions in specifically classed vehicles? Like if you play a bomber and bomb bases there is an award for destroying x bases if done within x matches and similar things. Could work in the same way some of the daily tasks currently do (for example "destroy 20 ground units while using a strike aircraft) to some extent but adding them as a continuous option based on class specific actions taken over a set amount of matches. So specific awards only obtainable while playing specific vehicle classes.
Another possibility (and one that was disussed and also suggested several times specificalyl for Sim EC) would be a) more types of targets and especially b) modular targets.
What I mean by that:
Since the beginning of WT, mission targets / bases were simple area targets with a certain nnumber of hitpoints. Hitpoints varied with rank, damage varied with weapons. This made sense in the original WW2 scenario WT was set in: You got a large target area, and you dump your bombs on it to decimate it.
But as soon as precision delivery methods (CCIP, CCRP) and later precision guided weapons were added to the mix, those single simple area targets made no sense anymore: It’s actually of zero advantage of using LGB’s to kill a base over just dumping unguided bombs on it. The latter actually usually better, especially with incendiary weapons which have a (IMO) unrealistically high damage output per weight.
So what I really hope WT will introduce sooner rather than later would be varied, modular mission targets with sub-targets with realistic properties!
Example 1: Army camp
A collection of individual buildings and vehicles that need to be destroyed, each with their own hit box, resistance damage point.
Here maybe Napalm would be good to get some of the vehicles that you hit in one go, buildings may need a hit by something heavier
Example 2: Factory complex
A collection of several buildings, best taken out individually with precision munitions.
Example 3: Airbase
While already modular at least in Sim to some extend, this sadly even now only extends to them being a collection of area targets, where it doesn’t matter at all where you dump your weapons.
Airfields would however be a perfect modular target: Several armored aircraft shelters, that can only be killed with heavy bombs, best precision guided, vehicles and aircraft that can be engaged with lighter weapons/area weapons, other buildings and structures, air defense and even taxiways and runways.
Such modular targets would much alleviate the issue of “base stealing”, as to completely kill a mission target would require several attacks, from several aircraft, and even what aircraft/equipment/weapon would matter.
And it would actually give the dedicated attackers an advantage over “fighters with bombs” and give them something to do.
And further more, the variety of targets and thus best weapons and best aircraft to deal with it woud add variety and possibility: No mor “rocks for everyone”, but “paper, scissors, rock” where those differences actually matter.
Giving daily tasks for aircraft types that give 2x 20% boosters for SL and RP would be an idea…
If the tasks are limited to daily then the incentive disappears once the task is done and we’re back to square one. Some sort of perpetual system would be way better.
Well that’s why 20%. Those can be in 10 or 20 match increments after receiving it, incentivizing further play either that day or the next.
30% if you want 10 matches. 10 matches is an hour sometimes though… so I like the 20 20%ers as a decent incentive.
You’re misunderstanding, i ment the incentive to take class specific actions. if the task is done there is no longer an incentive for players to take class specific actions.