I came to the conclusion that the game’s automated systems which handle “inactivity” of players - punish quite many good players for what the system mindlessly considers “inactivity”

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
13

And who told you i don’t want to fight it out when i’m the last player? It actually depends. I sure want to, if there are any reasonable chance to win a fight. When there is not, i don’t want to - ain’t suicidal here. Recently, i won one when i was the last guy and enemy team had 7 folks alive, exactly by fighting it out.

But it depends on what kind of plane you’re in, and what kind of players remain in enemy team. Quite often, it is suicidal to fight. Example: you fly a jet which has no counter-measures, no radar, no RWR, no MAW, no all-aspect missiles - and you got a bunch of jets against you who got all of that and have shown they know how to use it, by scoring good frags in the match. Matchmaking allows such stuff. Trying to fight would be suicidal.

But that’s entirely different point. My 1st post is saying that IF the last guy does not want to fight - it’s a good thing for everyone who is playing to earn RP. Simple as that. You don’t like it? I don’t like it too. Our opinion does not change it, though.

As for your proposed options, they are not so good. “Crash to end the game”: doing this applies full SL repair cost. Why do it? “Let enemies shoot you down” - the same. “Land and jump out” - this one is OK only if you know you can safely land. Sadly, those days, it’s very often not the case: there are players who will destroy you when you’d try to land. Vultures, the old WT word for 'em - they prey on airfields, both with and without AA on them, to get easy kills.

About activity: after doing 3…4 total of destroyed enemy bases / enemy kills (including AI planes), activity gets over 80% even if you’d then spend more than half of a match doing nothing. There is many times more RP to gain via staying alive and increasing “time played” than what you can get by doing many more “actions” which score for activity - doesn’t get more than 100% you know.

And yes, the other team can and should keep hitting bases, ground units and NPC planes when that last guy is running away. They get triple benefit from such a prolonged game: 1st, direct RP rewards for bases and units destroyed, 2nd, several more percent of activity, and 3rd, more “time played” while also getting victory bonus over it all.

That is what i am talking about, man - that “last guy running away” and surviving for longer actually gives the other team ideal conditions to get more RP and SL from a match. They should thank him, if RP or SL is what they want. And like i said more than once already, anyone just wishing for a new match - can quit the current one and get new one any time. It’s just couple buttons to press. Ain’t too long or difficult, is it?

14

TL;DR What you want is to control the behavior of other players which will never happen no matter how much you want to. I will remind you what your options are as the last player if you don’t want to fight it out.

  1. Crash and let the match be over with.

  2. Let the enemy shoot you down.

  3. Return to airfield, land and then J out.

Those are the only options you get as the last player on the losing team in a match. No more, no less. Deal with it.

15

If I interpret these calculations and conclusions correct, it only shows one problem to me:
The reward system doesn’t fit the current state of ARB at all.

The primary goal of ARB is to win a battle. And the reward system has to follow this goal. Actually it doesn’t.

All other problems of “bad” behaviour are symptoms of a public server design. You will never get rid of it. And the useless report system makes it even worse.

1 Like
16

So is there a TLDR? ARB Brawl leading to low playtime which is a cut to profit, or what?

17

To control behaviour of other players, some meants of control are required. There are no such means - not for me, nor for any other player. Which means, it’s impossible for me to control other players. And i don’t have a habit to want any impossible thing.

And i never said a word about what any “other” players must do. I only spoke about what they can do. If they so wish, themselves.

As for the options you proposed - how about “4. Outrun and dodge other players”. How that is not an option in your list? It often takes skill to do it well, it can be fun doing it, and there are even in-game awards for doing exactly that, like “survivor” in air arcade.

18

It doesn’t fit completely, but it does fit certain purposes. It’s different. That’s why my 1st post uses specific phraze i used to describe this problem - not “doesn’t fit ARB”, but rather “the game’s automated routines to deal with “inactive” players, and majority of players in the game - all see such “combat avoidance” as something bad. In error.”.

It is exactly the game’s “inactivity” reporting tool, reward suppression subsystem and “potential bans” which needs revision. Not the entire reward system. Because there are important reasons RP and SL are awarded the way they are awarded, and changing them any much - would be inadvisable.

It sure doesn’t, yes. But thing is, it shouldn’t, too.

To win a battle - is not the primary goal in ARB. Nor in any “random” battles mode. To win battles - is the primary goal only in squadron battles and in team tournaments, in WT. Because there, everyone in the team gets rewards if the team wins, and everyone gets nothing if the team loses. This is the same with IRL team sports like basketball, volleyball, football, hockey, etc.

In ARB and other “random battles” modes, rewards are individual. Your team may lose, but if you personally did very good, you still get very good rewards. Your team may win, but if you failed hard, you get almost nothing anyway. That’s why in ARB and other “random battles” - the primary goal, for everyone, is to do well personally. Whether the team wins or not - is secondary, not primary, concern.

And then, the big thing about ARB and all other “random battles” modes reward system - is that, by design, it must both provide significantly bigger rewards for better individual performance, BUT in the same time, it must also provide significantly big rewards for vast majority of players, including those with low skill, ability and/or motivation to perform well. The former is to satisfy “better half” of all the players - the latter, to satisfy “worse half” of all the players, simply put.

You see, that reward system must provide “meaniningfully large” reward to keep people grinding, and all kinds of people - noobs and masters, weak and strong alike; but also it must not allow any way to massively (many-fold) increase of reward via this or that specific tactic or method of playing, because if such exist, someone among dozens thousands players will find and share it, and before long, lots of players do it and “break the system”, so to say.

Those, very understandable, needs - shaped up that key fact my 1st post mentions: “majority of RP gained - is from time played”. It is the “equalizer” part as well as “ain’t nothing there to massively increase RP gains via some specific gameplay tactic”. And as such, this feature is certainly needed and desired, and will stay. It may get weakened a bit, perhaps, but never dramatically.

That’s why the only imaginable way to deal with that side-effect of “avoiding combat = inactivity = punishable” current state of game’s treatment of running-away / base camping players - is to do something specifically about how inactivity is treated and handled by the game. Can’t change (much) reward system, per above.

19

There is. 3rd paragraph of 1st post.

If that’s too long, here’s WTLDR: game’s reward system makes it beneficial for everybody to avoid PvP combat when they are “last guy in the team”, and even more so, against enemy’s “last guy in the team”.

20

I don’t have much to say on your opinions in general here, but i do want to point out some details.

Players shouldn’t be playing for SL/RP as a primary goal, they should be playing to have fun. I can almost with certainty say that a vast majority of players won’t find flying aimlessly around the map fun, nor chasing the player that does.

The systems in place AND the rules all discourage such behaviour:

image
image1127×63 26.3 KB

( Code of Conduct )

In the end it isn’t about maximising the grind, it’s about having fun playing the game. You are fully within your right to try to maximize your own RP gain as long as it doesn’t break the rules of fair play and effect other players experience with the game negatively.

Sidenote:
Avoiding combat may increase your reward, but i’m not entirely sure it does though as RP gain from time played is a function of a multiplier with activity percentage gained from your score.
I’m not sure about this next source as i have no way of confirming the data but my gut feeling tells me it leans towards being correct. Section 4.3 of this player made RP calculation explanation shows that if you play longer without gaining more score you loose activity percentage and i wonder if that loss is offset by the RP gain from time played over the same period for some of the score ranges. ( WT score, SL and RP reward calculation method revised edition - Google Documenten )

3 Likes
21

You ARE getting a bigger reward. Check the numbers in 1st post. See how far over half of base RP - was for “time played”. Now, you can see i didn’t make a gazillion of kills in it - often, you can do that all in 12 mins. And that match lasted 24 mins. Means, you do that much, or similar, in 12 mins, then you for “doing nothing” 2nd half - another 12 mins - you get half of that “time played” RP, multiplied by vehicle research bonus and skill bonus (+150% combined, in that particular match).

In that particular game, it’d be this: 250% of (6445 / 2) = 8056 RP for “doing nothing” for 2nd half of the game, which would end up being 8056 / 236.97 = 34% of all RP earned. With 1st half being other 66%.

So roughly, when you prolong a match, you’re getting RP at about half rate for just being in a match - chilling out however you like. As long as you’re alive.

And if this sounds “half as good as it could be” - nope, it’s about just as good, at least. Because while you’re in a match, you have zero time losses for waiting - 1st some seconds waiting for the game to conclude a match, then varying amount of time waiting until the game’s matchmaker puts you into another, then waiting more for the map to load and starting count to end. All that waiting times, you get zero rewards.

And even more, at least occasionally, you play a match where someone gets you before you can do any “activity”. You lose a head-on, or get some radar missile from nowhere killing you after you spent some minutes climbing, etc. All those games? Also almost zero rewards.

Compare it to pretty safe and guaranteed RP gain when the enemy team’s last guy is prolonging your winning game, add winning bonus on top (if you average all your games, you’re definitely not getting winning bonus from all games - but in games vs “last guy running”, almost always you know you’ll have your winning bonus) - and it’s clear picture here: whether you realize it or not, you do get overall better rewards letting “last enemy guy” live.

I am not asking you to do it, mind you. I am just stating how reward system works. You play however you like. If you like to play in ways which generate less rewards because it’s, for any kind of reason, more fun for you - sure thing, i won’t try to stop you anyhow.

But there is certain rationality in discussing how reward system and inactivity penalties work, you know. Lots of people do it. I am far not the 1st guy who does it.

22

1st, i know for a fact lots of players see RP grind as their primary goal. Arguably, more than half of all. Source: countless discussions over more than 10 years about it that i’ve read, and countless talks about it i had with others. Also, it’s pretty clear by the way Gaijin designed RP grind - it is a grind. And it’s much in human nature to prioritize the grind in grindy games. Very normal.

2nd, those things are not mutually exclusive. You can much care about your RP and (to lesser extent) SL rewards - and have fun, in the same time. And fun in more than one way.

I respectfully (no sarcasm!) disagree; i think you misinterpret this rule, much.

1st: nothing in this topic is about being AFK.

2nd: nothing i posted anyhow advocates taking any deliberate action that leads to a loss.

  • clarification: avoiding combat does not always lead to a loss. Because it is possible multiple enemies will die themselves while you’re avoiding combat, after which you can resume PvP action if needed. Practical example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1monujo/antivulture_nesher_1_vs_7_heres_how_you_win_if/ . In this video, i was the last guy vs 7 enemies, and at some point i actively avoid combat by flying back to my AA airfield and patrolling it, then using its AA systems as cover. Result: out of 7 enemies, 4 enemies die without me even trying to fight them, themselves. 5th dies by AA trying to attack me. I actively defeated only two our of seven. Therefore, avoiding combat, however unlikely, can still lead to a win - and therefore can not ever be a proven way of deliberately losing a match. Fact.

3rd: “wandering around the map without completing objectives” - to me, this clearly describes cases when players do it for entirety of a match. Which this topic is not about, at all. This topic is about doing some objectives - be it PvE or PvP - 1st, and then, depending on situation in a match, possibly and optionally, for a part of a match, wandering around the map and/or avoiding combat, while knowing with certainty that doing so will benefit every person who remains alive in the match - both teams, - via provoding better rewards.

4th, even if any of previous 3 points are anyhow objectionale - there is yet another layer to it: yes, there is this Code of Conduct, and it has this rule - and it is exactly part of this topic’s 1st post revelation that this particular rule of this Code of Conduct needs a revision. Exactly in light of particular specific feature of game’s reward system which i described in full detail in 1st post.

For most players, i believe - and i’m pretty certain - it’s about both those things. Similarly important, each.

“Rules of fair play”: how exactly avoiding combat is unfair? Did you not ever do it yourself, even if for a brief moment?

How about playing a tank, making a shot and then driving back a few feet to hide behind a corner until your gun reloads? Here you go - you just avoided combat!

How about some fighter diving into your bomber, and you dive further down and away, trying to reach bombing position? Here you go - you just avoided combat, you didn’t try to hit that fighter with your turrets, but dove down!

How about your stock destroyer steaming full ahead away from that big scary cruiser, which got twice bigger guns with twice higher effective range, but half your speed? You ever do that - you “avoid combat”, too.

So, then, if you consider those and similar cases “acceptable” and “fair play”, then you gotta agree: there are situations when avoiding combat, for some shorter or longer part of a match - is perfectly fair, legit and respectable.

This topic is about discovering and explaining just one more such reason. One of many.

And i fail to see how it should be treated any different. It should be seen, in my opinion, as perfectly fair, legit and respectable, as well.

And so far, none of the responses i see in this topic convinced me otherwise.

23

That’s your opinion.
You think it backwards.
The reward system has to be a consequence of the game goal, but most rewards, especially for beginners, could be earned by base bombing, with no effect to the battle. In some sense, many of these players are playing more passive than the ones who want save a ticket advantage by holding enemies away from ground targets by baiting.
That’s why I say, if GJN won’t lower the rewards for bombing, they should increase the ticket bleed. Imo there has to be correlation between axction in battle and the rewards.

It’s the same with mission points for events. There is no logic behind it, why I get more mission points for destroying 3 studebakers than for a player kill. So even this system could force me to a passive play.

True.
And that’s why i will never understand this grinding thing. There is no fun in it at all.

I’m a player having fun at all tiers, but when I play lowtier every second battle I get a comment, why a lvl 100 player is playing so low. It’s farming, seal clubbing, blablabla…
In my beginners time I had to play many battles in a row against squads of Ceres, JG3, Olyst and so on. I never complained about it. I took it as a challenge and had fun.
Nowadays everyone you intercept before he can drop bombs is whining…

24

I would prefer if they brought back the ability to bomb the af after taking out the bases.

I feel like the bombing cycle/culture was better back then due to it.

2 Likes
25

Hence why i said “shouldn’t”.

Never said they were, that is why i said “primary”.

I think you’re misreading it.

Deliberately remaining inactive during a match (i.e., being “AFK”) or taking actions that lead to a loss, such as wandering around the map without completing objectives or avoiding engagement with opponents.

The “or” means that they are two separate things. This means that it doesn’t have to lead to a loss to be against the rules, It’s enough that you are deliberately remain inactive. Then it gives examples of what those actions can look like.

I wonder how you get “clearly” out of a standalone statement that you then applied your own preconceived circumstances to.

Personal opinion:
It depends on the situation and amount, it’s circumstantial. In some instances it’s temporarily the only reasonable option such as when you’re fully out of offensive weaponry and/or fuel, then you have to avoid combat to fly to base and re-arm. In other situations such as when you’re the only player left in your team, you have fuel and weapons but choose to space climb and not engage anyone just to prolong the match time then it is against the rules. I’ve personally only ever done option one.

Then you’re doing it because you have no other options and only to the point where you are able to re-engage.

You’re avoiding engagement to achieve other objectives that make you an active player.

Absolutely, 100% . But what you describe here:

Isn’t it. at all. In fact i regularly se reports against players for these types of actions meaning that many players do not see it as something they want to experience in the game, regardless of if it gives them a better reward or not.

Additionally, much of what you ask other players to do here is also against the rules.

Screenshot 2025-08-21 133328
Screenshot 2025-08-21 1333281052×69 21.3 KB

Asking other players to not engage in PvP and instead do PvE is against the rules.

You might personally want the rules changed to allow for this, but the problem with that is that it would allow for very malicious play without any way to stop players abusing it. What you describe isn’t any different from tanks doing cap-trading where they don’t shoot each other and just go back and fourth taking a capture point to gain RP and SL.

As it stands, avoiding the enemy (with no intent of re-engaging them when a better position / situation is achieved) for the sole purpose of prolonging the match is currently against the rules. As is asking other players to avoid doing specific in-game actions.

You’re also likely thinking about this backwards, instead of encouraging players to play in a way that might break the rules for an increase in economical reward you should instead argue for a change in how the system works where it rewards players more for actively playing.

26

If only. Limited supply of bases. Typical 16 players team, 4 bases. And some players eagerly take out 2 or even 3, in one go, when they can. Their respawn time is ~4 minutes or so. Not enough for even quarter of the team.

There is already. And strong one. If you do no “actions”, your activity is near 0%, you get almost no rewards. You do “some few” actions more important than destroying some howitzers, and your activity is above 50%, you get more than half possible rewards. You do “many” actions, though, and diminishing returns kick in - both for direct RP rewards and further activity gains.

But regardless of how many actions you did, most RP you earn - is from “time played”. It’s the largest, and by far, “direct source” of your RP. And then it gets multiplied by activity %. If activity % is low (you did nothing or almost nothing) - you get nothing or almost nothing, because activity is low. If it’s reasonably high - you get close to maximum possible RP from any match.

Thing is, what i tried to explain above - for the sake of “new” and “average” players, activity % should be quite high (well avove 50%) even when they manage to do very few “significant” actions (like killing a base, defeating a player / NPC unit, or hard ground target). Why? Because in vast majority in their matches, they are only able to do that few of such actions, being eaten by better experienced / able / equipped players in opposing team. It’s fair and appropriate reward system works this way.

But then it creates this side-effect of “do few good actions and it becomes more beneficial to prioritize staying alive more than anything else” effect, see?

Can’t have both things “right”. It’s one, or the other. Either well-being of weak players, or extra potential for veterans. Can’t have both.

27

False.

Read this:

Activity is just a function that takes “Time Alive” and “Score” as input and outputs a multiplier which is then used in the following formula:

Win: Play time x activity x coefficient x RP multiplier x 2
Defeat : Play time x activity x coefficient x RP multiplier x 1.34

In case of ARB, coefficient is 1.22 RP per second.

For ARB, the function is qualitatively shaped like this (Z axis represented by the curves’ labels)

image

This conceptual diagram is derived from:

image

Reiterating: The only thing which determines “activity” is (score earned, time spent alive). This is not a linear function. As you can see, earning 1800 score but only being alive for 200 seconds only nets you 78% activity - that’s ~3 kills with 3 crits! Only 78% activity!

Whereas, 800 score earned over ~550 seconds gives you 80% activity.

Your 1800 score GOES UP in activity (78% at 200 seconds) to 91% at 800 seconds. You LITERALLY GAIN ACTIVITY DOING NOTHING!

Broadly speaking, an optimal match is one that lasts about 12-15 minutes with ~3 kills (1 kill worth 450, 1 crit is worth 150). Existence of skill bonus makes optimal match shift upwards in length as despite the loss of activity, you already have a 75% bonus guaranteed (notably, this does not work with either premium vehicles or a premium account so that reduces the benefit of skill bonus)

Please, for the love of all that is holy -

the linked post is the FIRST THING when you search the forums.
image

Please do not spread misconceptions or false understanding of the reward structure.

2 Likes
28

In an ideal world - yes. The OP has valid points and the majority of players play exactly for just one reason: Grind.

And gaijin offers all solutions for grinders: Premium time & vehicles and the option to buy a talisman for TT vehicles.

And, ofc, a reward structure which allows playing the game and progress without any clue about aerial warfare. Bombing respawning bases with little to zero game impact (but a rather high RP gain) is one of most outstanding inventions by gaijin in the whole game - even a toddler can play Air RB.

That’s also the reason why the Air RB game play is ruined - the real fun begins when the lobby size is down to 2 vs 2 or 4 vs 4 - because the grinders are dead.

Regarding this:

This is a classic example of a rule which was written for the sake of having rules.

If gaijin would really be interested in things related to inactivity, they would auto-kick every player spawning at the airfield and sitting there the entire match - just because he had to help his mom in the kitchen.

I lost over the years dozens of matches playing 1 vs 2 because these guys prevent the red square from being active (as the actual active player remains hidden) and blind hunt orders have the tendency to pick these parking guys instead of the active guy.

In a recent match i met a 3 men squad. Average players but obviously coordinated (2 109s and 1 Yak-3). After the first minutes it was clear that my remaining team was not good enough to face those guys on an individual level. So i decided to take the high 2 109s out of the fight by playing clueless victim. They took the bait and came down from high alt and i gave them the illusion that they can catch me. Their Yak-3 joined them later. So i kept them busy whilst my team murdered their tickets.

So based on the rules i violated them as i “wandered around the map” for several minutes, did not complet any objectives, i just prevented them from doing theirs. You might get the point of rules vs reality.

A word regarding the rule “deliberately losing”:

Technically a hell of players deliberate lose matches. Examples:

  1. You have a ticket disadvantage of 150 points and fight at 8 km against 2 109s. A B-25 within your team is not attcking the pillboxes below him - despite you told him we will lose if he goes for a base (either ticket drop for a base kill is too low or he his too far away from a base). Your judgement?
  2. You see a 3 men squag at 4.7 - 2 of them fly biplanes. Your judgement?

So these 2 examples (attacking wrong targets, troll squads) above show that there is a huge gap between rules and in-game reality.

My game experience is highly negatively if i am the only fighter in my team without bombs attacking ground targets - so those fighter players might have fun with shooting ai targets, but their fun is ruining the fun of others.

29

This may be a consequence of multiple game modes. I can, at very least, confirm that game masters do intervene on reports regarding “PvE Only” match rigging as Schindlbee had confirmed once in the past for air sim (I posted chatlog of a very “funny” lobby where people said all kinds of very nice and friendly things and have been informed, while the chatlog was removed, that the offending party have been taken care of in context of match rigging.)

1 Like
30

OP has valid points in some areas yes, but their solution is in my eyes a wrong one.

I’ve personally argued in favour of implementing more engaging “base bombing” where for example different structures get destroyed a different amount depending on munition used (eg, a bunker shouldn’t take damage from napalm and spaced out vehicles/buildings shouldn’t take as much damage from a bunker buster). It would at minimum make that part of the gameplay less “point and click” and require some skill/knowledge to effectively gain progress from. There are other things i could add here as well but i think you get my point.

Yes, it is there to have some way to discourage (and be able to punish) those that deliberately ruin the gameplay for others (at the detriment of discouraging those that might in rare cases have legitimate purpose for the action, same as any rule really).

They do to some extent don’t they? i’ve think i’ve come back to being kicked out of match (but i honestly might be misremembering here, i’m not certain). At the very minimum they do not count as active when all other players are destroyed and the auto ticket bleed speeds up even if they are sitting there, i’ve had this happen to me because it took to long to land and re-arm so i counted as inactive and lost the match.

  1. The action itself doesn’t lead to a loss, it increases chances of a win by bleeding tickets, they didn’t chose the optimal way to bleed tickets and lost that way, in the same way a player can choose the wrong way to fight an enemy plane and lose a fight they could have won with a different strategy. The action itself in isolation isn’t directly leading to a loss.

  2. Playing with friends that have lower BR vehicles isn’t against the rules, there is even an achievement designed for those situations, “God mode”. As long as they in the match itself aim to win and take actions that progress the team towards a win then it’s fine.

I don’t think so, see above.

31

There you go, you said it yourself. It suffices that you agree that it’s circumstantial. Now, if you’d read what 1st post of this topic says about how game punishes inactivity, and if you’d consider that very rule from Code of Conduct quoted above - where, in those parts, is any mention of any circumstances?

None.

Let’s take, for example, that 1-vs-7 fight i linked above. Many circumstances were relevant. Types of enemy aircraft i’ve seen before i decided to went to my airfield and camp there (notably, sweden aircraft at this BR are deadly). Amount of fuel i took from very start, anticipating possibility of needing it - full tank. Features of the plane i was piloting, mentioned in the title of that reddit post i linked. Amount of kills made by those 7 remaining enemies - far more than half. I knew they are skilled fighters. Even terrain about my team’s AA airfield on this map. Even combat messages at certain points - for example, i initiated my landing after seeing that last guy just killed some ground units, so i knew i had time to land, repair and reload safely. Etc.

You think any “administrator” who judges who’s “properly” inactive and who’s not - knows all such details and circumstances? I doubt.

You think any automated system can know it all and properly judge? I bet not.

So then, who will then decide in which cases circumstances were justifiable, and in which cases they were not?

Nobody can. Especially because each player’s capabilities and skills - vary wildly. What seems “obvious” for me, or you, or any game’s admin - can seem dead wrong, or be unknown, to someone else. Applies to most things, this.

Means, inactivity “sanctions” and bans will inevitably often be based on incorrect judgement. If any are done at all.

Solution do it? Hell if i know. I just know it’s bad to punish those who are innocent and good-natured. Bad for the game, and bad for everyone who interacts with them. Mind you, this is not anyhow personal experience, if you wonder; just general observation.

As i explained above, 1st, it’s at least arguably not against the rule quoted, 2nd, as already mentioned, i think that rule needs improvement, and 3rd, as per 1st post of this topic, it benefits all remaining players via game’s reward system - both teams. I gave the numbers, and so far noone objects the percentages provided. It’s hard fact. Again, like it, or not. It’s how it works.

And 4th, even. By your own logic, when your vehicle is clearly out of shape to fight - like when out of offensive weaponry - then it’s “the only reasonable option” to avoid combat. Now, take Su-17M2 for example - no counter-measures, no radar, no radar missiles, no all-aspect missiles, no agility to turnfight anything but bricks like F-105. But you got your cannon, full belt. You’re facing some usual fighters trying to catch you - a mirage, a Draken with its awesome low-alt speed and agility, a mig-21 with its radar missiles. You’ve see they scored kills already. They chase you. You know you have 0% chance to win if you would engage any of them - his friends will kill you, guaranteed, in half a minute. You know you have 100% chance to outrun them, because Su-17 engine is superior at high alt. And you know you need high alt to reduce fuel consumption to last until map timer ends. And you know they’ll easily kill you if you’d try to land. What you don’t know - is whether any of them would fail his fuel management and crash for running outta fuel, and whether any of them has damaged gear or flaps and would fail his landing and die trying it, and whether any of them would stop chasing, start grinding ground units and crash into the ground doing it. I’ve seen all of it happen. And so, you know you have more than 0% chance to win if you’d go stratosphere and fly up there, possibly for over 10 minutes, hoping to even out the odds. If just one of them remains, you may go down and fight, and prevail, and win.

Your reasonable choice in this situation? And mind you, it’s real situation i had. My reasonable choice - go stratosphere.

But you just said, quote, “it is against the rules”. I say, there is a problem with rules, here. I say it again, and for the last time.

And you also said, quote, “I’ve personally only ever done option one”. Perhaps you’ve never played much any of Su-17s, Su-7, Su-22s, Lightnings, F-105D, F-15s, F-104s, F-111s, or other similar planes which all have technical high-alt and/or speed advantage over most planes of comparable BR.

P.S. It is no player’s fault some planes excel at high-alt and/or speed more than others. And it is, quite regularly, a reasonable choice to use such advantage exactly the same manner other kinds of other planes’ advantages - are used. “Against the rules”? Give everyone very same vehicle, just one exactly the same, for every random battle - then talk about such a rule. Otherwise, frankly, it doesn’t sound very reasonable - to put it mildly. ;)

32

Lmao.

The player reports for passive behaviour come from plain stupid players which have zero clue about how to play Air RB. These are the guys which frequently lose even in large numerical superiority because they can’t catch a faster plane, forgot to look after their tickets or are unaware of ai actions on old legacy maps.

If the fly rat planes without sufficient top speed or high alt performance to have an advantage in turn fights - it is their problem. Only clueless players tuen into 2-6 guys chasing him.

I am aware of the issues within SB matches. As the whole thread deals with Air RB i saw no need to mention it.

The issue is more that the fellow GM is desperately trying to find something which supports his views.

The context matters. If i see this:

the fellow GM cites from a rule related to gaijins interest to earn money - “participating” is clearly aimed at participating in in-game events (like the current F-106 grinding event, tournaments, etc.).

1 Like