certainly not,… woul you have 8 people on your side aiming for you? i don’t think so,…
community is rather straight forward (not to say it otherwise) they will rush on the closest group
This is because the enemy’s position can be predicted to some extent from the respawn point and the combat airspace is limited. Have you ever played SB? There are multiple respawn points and sporadic combat.
1 Like
@Stona_WT @Smin1080p
The map seems too small for the number of enemies in this test. However, as others have said, if we just make it an EC map, we will have to gather at one point and have a lot of barren battles again.
Propose to do RBEC in SB system to distribute the battle and combine moderate BVR and close combat.There will be respawns, multiple airfields, which will allow the BVR fighters to start breathing and the circling fighters to strategize to get close enough to dock fight.Furthermore, a certain number of players who want to play CAS will flow from land RBs and land CAS spam will settle down.
5 Likes
Players don’t usually just go to the center of the map. They typically either rush the bases or congregate near the location of AI ground troops or they just fly straight from their airfield.
If multiple airfields are used with AI spread out throughout the front line this could help mitigate the furball.
I think we’re getting to the point where multiple airfields are a must and maybe the airfields should have varied locations.
If each map has 2 first spawn airfields, maybe the airfields should have locations that vary per match using RNG. The enemy airfields also shouldn’t be spotted in this case.
I think we’re also getting to the point where spotting markers should be limited as well. Maybe if enemies are within a certain radius of bases or airfields, they can be spotted but it would be interesting to see how turning off enemy spotting would play out.
I think eventually we’re going to really need a proper RB EC mode for these modern jets so maybe those elements above will be reserved for EC and the current RB will just include smaller teams.
16 vs 16 on the current map setup just doesnt work.
7 Likes
Is there a chance we could see this test with the new spread out spawn mode ?
4 Likes
I would be surprised if they altered the dev server test. Hopefully they’ll see player feedback and make some changes though. From this forum and from other feedback I’ve seen, the vast majority of game play comments consist of:
- we need smaller teams.
- we need less player density
So hopefully when these fox 3’s get implemented we see some meaningful changes to Air RB, but don’t be surprised if they just implement it as is.
Gaijin is known to ignore this feedback sometimes, especially when it comes to aviation.
7 Likes
Maybe not but who knows it could be cool
Can somone give me a list of weakest to strongest ARH missiles
Things that NEED to happen before more ARH missles are added.
- Bigger maps. Either a 25% increase to the current 128km maps, making it 160km, or a 50% increase making it 192km. Mostly for simulator mode but I’m sure it’d be welcome in realstic too. So there is more map distance and more player spread.
- Upgraded airfield defense where ARH missles are present being 11.7+ like Pantsir-S1’s. Roland’s don’t have the range.
- Fix multi-pathing, where flying low isn’t a problem. Don’t totally remove just make it more plausible.
Everything else is just a plus.
11 Likes
it is debateable for ir. Depends on the circumstances, so I would say roughly equal, which is fine. But the R27 ER is in game far superior in all aspects compared to the AIM 7 M.
bigger maps are useless they don’t help AIRRB
1 Like
We don’t need bigger but more player spreading and less players at once.
3 Likes
16vs16 is mostly manageable up to 11.3
2 Likes
Id argue 16 v 16 really breaks down after 10.0. Id be for 12 vs 12 at 10.3 to 11.3 and then 10 vs 10 beyond 11.3.
5 Likes
Or, we can make players to spread on maps,… by forcing team to split in 2 groups, on 2 differents airfields.
→ the current ARB have Square maps, but the players uses only a 25% large band of the full map.
2 Likes
Yes. So player spreading by having bigger maps. The current 128k these ARH missles can if done properly lock and launch on a target all the way on the other side of the map. WE NEED BIGGER MAPS. It’s that simple.
Realistic high BR is dumb anyway
1 Like
I don’t see how its breaking though. You’re able to keep a good situational awaraness at 11.3 and below, and the missiles are quite easy to avoid. Most missiles also aren’t all aspect and have relatively low range
If all targets are in center like we have now the maps are still to small, The maps we have now are big enough, its just that the objectives (which is basically the active map size) is still the same as the small maps… We just have to fly a minute longer to get there.
So adding 1 min longer of flight will resolve 0% besides being more bored. (people already complain enough about it)
5 Likes
Bit off topic, but this has been a major discussion with regards to ARH’s coming: 16 v 16 isn’t particularly an issue, the issue is the maps and gameplay.
What I mean: it always devolves into a furball. Even on the EC maps most people, outside of the bomb trucks, just run to the middle and fight as a giant clump and the match is usually decided there. This has been a major complaint for air RB and will reach it’s breaking point with ARH’s.
Proposal: this is something I plan to do a write-up on for the Suggestions section; but the baseline is to make the gameplay spread out and more a kin to Ace Combat missions. This would entail adding modern ground targets NOT HAPHAZARDLY placed around the map in frankly stupid positions. There should be engagement from the ground targets, such as SAM sites zoning off areas that would need ground attackers to clear out. AWACs should be providing interception information and should be a high value target/high value defence target. Imagine +20% rp for keeping your AWAC’s alive by the end or killing the enemy AWAC’s. Player markers honestly should probably go at top tier, along with missile markers. Basically what we need is more complex and engaging gameplay. None of this is particularly hard to implement from a game dev perspective, but would require actually hiring a couple competent gameplay and map designer devs instead of outsourcing it…
As for the ARH test, I found them to be very lackluster. You can easily defeat one that goes pitbull by doing a 360 and breaking the lock. Unless it is still being fed data by a hard lock or TWS, it does not re-acquire the lock and will miss. I’m not sure if this is correct behavior, it doesn’t sound correct, but it makes for the missiles to be a glorified SARH.
6 Likes