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
don’t bother, I already tried to suggest similar thing, it never past moderation.
1 Like
R-77-1 have are a lot of differences between R-77
1 Like
Because the f16 can technically carry the aim120 on all of its missile pylons." On the F-16, AIM-120 AMRAAMs can be loaded on stations 1 and 9 (1 missile each, wingtip), 2 & 8 (1 missile each) and 3 & 7 (1 missile each).F16 aim120 loadout
1 Like
That’s not what he asked about I think. He probably meant that with x4 AIM-120A + x2 AIM-9M loadout Sidewinders are the ones being wingtip mounted unlike IRL where AMRAAMs are almost always on the tips.
6 Likes
I think a very nice side effect of ARH missiles will be that, with players carrying these and firing some early in the game, people are gonna be bringing less high-performance IR missiles like the R-73 and Aim 9M to the furball. Hopefully the meta doesn’t devolve into skimming the ground to dodge missiles constantly, my missiles have performed pretty well at low altitude, and terrain hugging is why you carry a few IR missiles anyway.
Ah like limit each airfield to only 8 spawns on a team of 16 so it evenly splits players on the team?
That could help alot on the EC maps.
Prolly won’t make any difference on maps like City though.
2 Likes
let’s just have EC maps after 11.7
3 Likes
Yep, player count needs to be scaled according to rank.
Rank I-III => 32v32
Rank IV => 24v24
Rank V => 16v16
Rank VI => 12v12
Rank VII => 10v10
Rank VIII => 8v8
Future rank IX => 4v4
5 Likes
32 v 32 may be a bit much. I think my PC may explode.
1 Like
China has literally had op vehicles before, stop huffing on copium
Yeah the real issue isn’t really small maps (though it is a part, I will admit), it’s the fact that the objectives are useless because why go for bombing targets (other than rp) when you can just kill other players to win
so people will immediately go to the front/middle of the map to get kills and then die and leave
also, I’ve seen people complain about low altitude fighters, but I think people should be easy targets when at high alt, because the amount of damage you can do with your missiles far surpasses being low to the ground. maybe we should encourage players to go low as well to support the climbers by defending them from other low alt roamers, like actual air combat?
1 Like
Or ya know, just give everything air spawns below 7.0 instead of imploding everyone’s pc with 32v32
¯_(ツ)_/¯