More than a year ago now, as a direct response to the extensive requests for the Tornado IDSs to share a battle rating and not be erroneously split between 2 BRs we got this response regarding ground attacker “Effeciencies” and the relationship between BR and Rewards for these aircraft.
You can read the full segment here:
Spoiler
Continuing the discussion from Responding To Your Feedback On Separate Battle Ratings:
and the important part is this:
We never got this thread and this issue has not changed in anyway in the past year. If anything… Its gotten worse. So it is time for this thread. To have a proper place to provide official feedback to this side of ARB and hopefully, improve the game for the better for a notable chunk of aircraft which currently have a terrible time.
Do you want an official thread for this promised discussion?
- Yes
- No
But I want to lay down some personal thoughts on the matter within this thread alongside that request:
One of the main issues at the moment in my opinion, is that aircraft have a battle rating dictated or at least certainly influenced by maximum bomb loads, however there is a built in system that I don’t think many people know about. The more bombs you take, the less reward you will get per bomb. Take for example the Buc S1. I can run 8x 1000lb (of 2 different types) and with that bomb load I can in theory destroy 1.8 bases. However, I will earn vastly more reward if I run only 4x bombs and destroy only one base, than if I run 8x bombs and destroy one base and damage second or kill some Ai units. This entirely negates any advantage I may have over something with a slightly smaller bomb load. (I have heard multiple times that it is at 8.7 because it has a larger bomb load than the Canberra at 8.3, but with this mechanic in mind, should that matter?)
I conducted some quantitative testing of this and the results are below:
Tornado Gr4 (talisman and Premium)
| Bombs | RP | SL | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 4410 | 10540 | 536 |
| 6 | 3901 | 9320 | 473 |
| 7 | 3533 | 8441 | 428 |
| 8 | 3257 | 7781 | 396 |
| 9 | 3045 | 7268 | 369 |
| 10 | 2872 | 6861 | 348 |
| 11 | 2733 | 6523 | 331 |
| 12 | 2616 | 6244 | 317 |
In essence, whilst it does show that if I can get 2x base kills, I would earn more than just 1, the rewards are notably reduced. Additionally, as I increased the number of bombs, the consistency of getting base kills drop significantly. I can usually always get a base kill by running 5x bombs, but it took me a number of matches to get 1x base kill with the max bomb load. Not too mention the fact that just because I have enough bombs too kill a second base, doesn’t mean that there is 1 active, or I’ll survive long enough to reach the target. In the 20 or so matches I did for this data, that happened only twice and the second one, just barely.
Whilst I was unable to get clean data, due to the fact that Ai vehicles reward a different amount depending on exact type. I did log this data a bit and does show that the rewards are also impacted by the amount of weapons taken
Though interestingly, napalm doesn’t seem to be impacted in the same way and so doesn’t get an immediate and notable reward advantage as you can run fewer bombs. But you still get the FM advantage.
Harrier GR1:
| Bombs | RP | SL | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3 Napalm | 3961 | 23613 | 536 |
| 5 1000lb | 4569 | 27231 | 618 |
So first things first. Either BR needs to be dictated by bomb load or by this diminishing returns mechanic. It is rather unfair to be “balanced” using both methods at the same time. Especially due to how inconsistent it is to get 1 base kill, let alone more than 1.
Would you like to see this diminishing returns mechanic removed?
- Yes
- No
- No, but it needs to be changed/improved
The next issue is one of offensive/defensive performance. If battle rating is dictated by the aircraft’s ability to perform in A2A combat, then once again, the current system fails. Many ground attackers are notably weaker than those at the same BR or in a few instances weaker than those at a lower BR. For this I’m excluding those that are a hard BR minimum due to advanced loadouts (such as all-aspect or IRCCM) but notable examples of this would be aircraft like the Jaguar GR1A and the Tornado IDS and its equivalents. You have 3x Tornado IDS at 11.7 all of which are much weaker than the Mig-23MLD at the same BR in both A2A combat and base killing. So it is time that BRs better reflect any aircraft’s ability to actually operate within the gamemode and not its theoretical rewards if it manages to sneak past the enemy team (which is not easy in the maps we have in ARB and the ever present markers)
Would you like to see ground attack aircraft have a BR that better represents their A2A performance (Where no other factors apply)?
- Yes
- No
Following that you have the available targets themselves. It’s one thing to have a large bomb load and another if you can actually make it to something to drop your weapons load on, but it becomes entirely irrelevant if there is nothing on the other side to actually drop your weapons on. I would propose turning the forward AFs into modular airfields such as those found in Air Sim, so that there is always something to attack and destroy. I would also add additional ground objectives that have a direct impact on the match outcome (such as SAM or Radar installations). Finally I would increase the rewards for killing the AI ground vehicles. Unless you are killing a lot, they are generally not worth the risk to engage.
Would you like to see the quality & Quantity of ground targets improved in ARB?
- Yes
- No
Another core part that really needs to improve is the impact that ground attackers can actually have on a match. Quite often they are dead weight to a team, unable to really have any measurable impact on the match outcome, which in turn, diminishes the overall value of ever really bringing a ground attacker to the gamemode. Increasing the ticket bleed for ground targets would be one step in the right direction, but I would also enjoy far more dynamic aspects such as objectives that apply buffs to your team or debuffs to the opposing team (Such as destroying radar stations that reveal your position?)
The recent Deep Strike event has shown what kind of ground targets could be added to add diversity to every gamemode for ground attackers.
I’m not sure what else could be done, but at the moment ARB is a deathmatch, and the first team to be killed, loses.
Would you like to see Ground Attackers have a greater impact to a typical match?
- Yes
- No
Finally, is the problem of “fighters” that are able to be highly effective in the base bomber role, usually thanks to their ability to run Napalm. Now I have no good solution for this. I’ve heard many ideas, but they all have negatives. But I do think the first is probably a bit of a rebalance of Napalm itself. But beyond switching its damage to more of a damage over time effect, I don’t have much of a solution in this regard. But it absolutely must be a part of the overall discussion for the requested thread above.
The only possible solution I’ve seen is giving ground attackers increased rewards for their role and fighers an increased reward for their role. Carrot rather than stick approach to encouraging players to use their aircraft “correctly”
I think that’s about it. I would love to hear peoples views on a mud mover overhaul for ARB and I really hope we can get the forum to actually discuss this problem properly and for the devs to actually listen to the community feedback. This is a MAJOR issue, and it really needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.