I do not think they will spend much effort on adding interesting and complicated objectives.
This game focuses on PvP battles only. It means we will always have symmetrical modes and maps.
They tried to introduce asymmetrical scenarios in World War mode. Not sure if they are planning to continue it.
Also it means that PvE objectives should not be too complicated, since they can be easily interrupted by enemy player.
For example, strike planes are nearly defenceless against fighter planes, so you should rely on your team to be able to focus on PvE objective. Hence, no complicated and interesting PvE objectives should be expected.
1 Like
Agree, i think that Gaijin doesnt realise that small changes can make a BIG difference. They should upgrade the “quality of life” in the game and THEN add more content :)
I think you misunderstand. This is not asking for PVE only. This is asking for an updated EC since they haven’t updated it in years.
Air Simulator mode is not a PVE mode. 50’s and 60’s objectives don’t make sense with player controlled aircraft that are in the 80’s to the 2000’s.
3 Likes
Did I say anything about PvE only mode? I specifically said about PvE objectives in current EC mode.
They do in current EC. Let me explain my point.
To complete 50’s objective playing 50’s plane your skill is precise drop of bomb.
It is easy to complete 50’s objective playing 2000’s plane, for sure.
Completing 2000’s objective requires decision making, analysis, target search. All of this means full focus on the objective. You cannot focus on 2000’s objective in intensive PvP battles.
That is why we have 50’s objectives. The main challenge to complete these objectives is enemy plane.
Or give me an example of 2000’s objective that is suitable for PvP battles?
1 Like
I also don’t think they will spend much time updating sim either because they haven’t touched it in over a year.
This is simply a post asking that they do something to finally update it.
Updating the objectives to match the era of aircraft wont take away the PvP. Just improve the game mode overall
2 Likes
I have updated my reply to you. Please, see the details above.
Also, would be great to see your vision on updating objectives.
I design my missions in a way they have 2000’s objectives. And players still cannot complete them…even without PvP component.
For maps to add in sim, I made the suggestion a few months ago for the addition of the tank map “frozen pass” as an air simulation map, it could be an incredible map for the mod that would bring a real new type of terrain
Concerning larger maps, I think on the contrary that it would be the solution to many problems, even the best possible solution. Having larger maps would force players to better manage their fuel (many planes would no longer be able to cross the map with their PC continuously on) in addition, it would force players to climb in altitude to gain efficiency, making the clashes more realistic. Then, larger maps would mean fewer spawn kills/airfields attacks, because it would force players to travel more distance and consume more fuel. Finally, it would also allow (finally) a little strategy, the engagement distances are currently far too short (we could finally react correctly to the F-14s coming at us at Mach 2)
Otherwise I completely agree with the points you raise.
1 Like
…and spawn more frequently. Maybe implement in a way that there’s always at least 3 bases, regardless of when the previous ones get destroyed: If down to less than three, immediately spawn a third, even if countdown not run through yet.
This is also a big issue often for ground battle events, which sometimes spawn very late, or don’t respawn at all after one has ended.
2 Likes
Not sure what is meant with 50’/60’s objectives here. Are we talking about quality of e.g. mission targets/bases?
Because here I see a great need but also big potential, if only they’d get away from those area targets and develop mission targets which consist of individual modules/buildings/structures/vehicles.
Makes little sense these days to bring guided weapons against bases, but if they’d consist of several individual elements that need to be knocked ot, not only would it be more challenging and thus interesting, but would go a long way to reduce the “base stealing” issue.
Same for airbases: Modular approach is ok-ish, but if for example the individual bunkers could be targeted and destroyed (with realistic strenght and thus demanding specific weapons), it would add so much more depth!
And: this would not hinder the use of unguided weapons: One can still try to hit specific elements, or carpet-bomb a base - of course with the result that one may be less effective in one run than employing precision weapons.
4 Likes
I think most of us don’t really expect new content.
Just fix the existing stuff and maybe give the surveillance plane a function (BRA call for nearest enemy would be so great, but I don’t have any hope…)
Maybe when Aces of Thunder is out and the hype is over they will turn a bit of attention back on SIM. If it’s not dead until then.
I would not expect anything before that
1 Like
I already proposed exactly the same idea long time ago. Maybe they still think about it, who knows.
Actually, we already have this thing is some extent. To be specific - battle zones (“arrows”) consist out of individual vehicles. But these “arrows” happen not so frequently.
But I am still not sure if it will help to create interesting gameplay for strike planes.
When I played Su-25 I could not complete even simple tasks because enemy team always outnumbered us. Even in fair battles it was nearly impossble to focus on PvE objectives.
The main issue in my opinion is that using precise weapon requires high altitude which is deadly at top tier.
I would have to lean with you on this. Probably one of the reason’s why they haven’t updated EC maps to begin with. Along with, they just don’t care because not many players play air simulator mode in the first place. And the money doesn’t come from simulator players, either.
I have already given a list. For example: The surveillance aircraft, if the surveillance aircraft was an F-4 Phantom (to simulate an RF-4) for blue side and have it at an actual recon altitude of at least 30,000 feet (about 9000m) or above. Or say a MiG 27 also at the same altitude for red side or maybe a J8. Yeah, players would have to climb a bit. But there’s also Fox 3’s. They wouldn’t be that hard to take out with a Fox 1 or especially a Fox 3. Same with bombers or attacker’s. It’s basically just updating the aircraft model used for said objective to match the BR/era of the BR rotation.
1 Like
Simulator EC is dying slowly because it’s gameplay is so boring. That and players usually tend to leave after so many deaths. There’s usually only a few top tier matches above 13.0 going on at once throughout the day. And usually it’s Denmark, Sinai, Tunisia, Stalingrad or some other mostly flat and/or small map. It’s the same thing over and over.
If they updated the AI, objectives, added more maps, it would bring some flavor to the higher BR’s again for sim EC.
4 Likes
Yep, totally agree, SB has become too stale to be fun.
It’s referring to the AI aircraft that are objectives. They are aircraft from the 1950’s - 1960’s. Such as, MiG 17’s, CL-13 Sabre’s, F-104, Su-7, etc.
-destroy/cover surveillance aircraft
-destroy/cover bombers
-destroy/cover attackers
#2 talks about updating the aircraft AI model to fit the BR rotation
1 Like
I’m reluctant to ask for any changes because recent experience suggests any change will make things worse.
One thing they could do is simply make airfields work like they said they would in the devblog, ie repair properly and not disappear when destroyed.
Fixing radar laid SPAA would also greatly increase the variety of targets available at some BRs.
More bases on some maps or, perhaps more realistic, simply make bases tougher. Much tougher. There’s no reason players ‘have’ to kill one or more bases per sortie as you still get a reward for the tonnage - an ‘ok’ reward based on what I was getting in unspaded attackers which could not destroy a base while stock. Quite a good reward if you consider the difficulty/risk and compare with difficulty/risk v reward in doing CAS or capping a zone.
Welcome to my latest mission about covering strike plane.
Spoiler
I do not think it will help much. In PvP battles you cannot focus on completing PvE tasks. If bots will be modern planes with effective weapons, they will complete their task quite effective, hence players will have much less chances to destroy them.
You talk about the mini missens we have in sim, but what I think is the worst is the rewarding system, you have to pay an joining price so -15k just for joining the game, than you hope to not be shot down in first 15min or you earn nothing and only loose no matter what you do in the game. Even if you get about 5 kills and than die within 10mins you are still in minus.
This rewarding system almost punish players for playing. Bomber or attacker who just bomb bases dont worry about that becouse thay dont take any risk, but fighters?
Sim is like pay to play, because if you deside to play you go there with no hope of any profit, maby just resurche poins but thats all.
If I score 5 kills and die in realistic battles in F15C I would get 13 to 15K of SL for each and - 15K for the death, nomatter the time I spent in the game. Outcome is still 60K SL in realistic.
Now sim:
All this happend in 10mins or so.
Sim might be rewardet batter since its harrder than realistic so for kill should be about 20K SL?
The main problem why players hate AirSim is the rewarding system it has.
I personally would like more if thay give as the normal rewarding ratter than new objectives.
2 Likes