That is a pretty succinct explanation on why arbitrarily raising SP costs due to bias is pointless.
And with TO in place, proper changes can be made into gameplay of todays RB GFs mode.
Well the weapons can get the proper Performance figures.
But i don’t see proper gameplay changes coming from TO to GRB.
By that I mean Gaijin could change current gamemode in order to properly simulate the battlefield
This dude knows something. Let him cook 🔥🔥🗣
You cannot simulate a battlefield in a game though. Since a battle requires the units to act according to doctrine. This would rob the players of agency. A simulated battlefield is only really possible in the realms of strategy games, where the single units hat limited agency.
You can make it somewhat authentic but not a simulation. You can only really simulate the vehicles when you want it to be a game where you control the units.
In addition to that, even if you just want more authenticity… Why RB? It would be completely wasted on RB.
- Limit the amount of players at the same time being able to do CAS. (Same system that can be used for super powerfull units, have a Reverse spawn cost system that atfer death of said CAS players is added pack in the spawn pool.Certain units can no exed the set Spawn pool cost)
- Add mor etargets for CAS to attack then players on the battlefield. Have artilery nad support units outside the fighting area. Destroying those will take away abilitys and amuntion, protection spawn points)
- Make all CAS start on the airfield and let them taxi to runway, spool up and so forth to delay there apreance. Same goes for helicopters. No instant air spawn and pew pew.
Of course You can’t.
But You may try to imitate it by introducing mechanics like front line, supply line etc.
WWM was a preatty interesting idea that was wasted due to players not understanding mechanics in place.
That is why I’m talking about simulating it, not making it a simulation.
As simulating I mean mimicing part of if.
Because in order to make it in SB, we would need first to properly change the gameplay of tanks and ships.
Well the conversation is dead now with TO advocates thinking it has anything to do with this Topic.
Fortunately the sensible discussion got in first and just off topic nonsense now.
1 Like
Simulating a battlefield and making a simulation of a battlefield are the same thing though. It both requires lack of agency of the players.
Sure, but why would you want this, without proper vehicles?
Change the rewards around such that it pays pilots better (by quite a bit!) to attack enemy aircraft, and not nearly as much to attack enemy ground targets. Also buff the reward for any ground vehicle that takes out an aircraft, and with that one change we would see GFRB seem like a tank battle with some aircraft, as opposed to an air raid.
Now, could aircraft still dominate the mode? Sure! Could we still see aircraft outnumber tanks? Sure again! But over time, people playing the game for rewards will be a lot less focused on playing the way they do now, and power will shift for anyone still playing like they are now.
I don’t think you quite understand what you’re talking about. Ingame, heavy bombers will literally die to singular 20mm HEs, whilst irl bombers like B-17 were known for tanking loads of 30mm and rockets, especially to the fuselage. That itself is another problem, wings and the fuselage get destroyed by indentical damage, and furthermore, small bombers like Ju 288 will die to the exact same shells as a Bv 238 or PBM 1-5 Mariner would.
TL:DR it’s not just mouse aim, planes just seriously have screwed up damage models.
Individual weapon nerfs are the negative changes that only toxic CAS-hater extremists want. In all reality what needs changing is spawncost (and how you get spawn points), making maps with actual effective counterplay, adding more SPAA options to lacking nations like USA or Israel, and possibly even making planes in GRB forced to use mouse joystick.
This is a myth there is even a study by the us army from the late 40s calculating exactly how much punishment a plane could take. I have read that, have you?
No it really is just mouse aim, in sb it takes quite a bit.
Yes it is mouse aim.
But those will always exist. And as long as there is no TO mode they will make their demands. Your idea that all of a sudden people will stop these demands is ridiculous. Just give them TO.
That’s the dumbest idea and completely unfair. Why should only planes be forced and tanks still get kiddy mouse aim?
Because Gajin would be too lazy to add tank mouse joystick XD. In all reality, I think both planes and tanks should use mouse joystick aim.
Except there’s real world accounts of B-17s tanking numerous 30mm mineshells, and even unguided rockets.
Or just realize you can’t please everyone and toxic CAS-hater extremists will move on to complaining about something else stupid. Gajin’s best course of action is to simply focus on the primary demographic, aka those looking for a combined arms game.
I’ve never had problems taking down bombers in SB before.
I blocked that dick,he talks gibberish and seems…on the spectrum.
I like this one for the most part. Planes should be expensive to spawn to the point that not doing well in one sends you back to the hanger. However I wouldn’t lower the BR of SPAA as some of them are quite deadly in the ground role i.e. shooting tanks with AP ammo.
of couse you could just remove AP belts from SPAA…
1 Like
SPAA BR Placement is in my opinion, one of the larger issues with SPAA vs CAS situation. Definetly needs some thought/overhaul.
For example, playing Britain at around BR7 kinda sucks as the best SPAA you’ve got is the Skink or Bosvark that are BR5 SPAA. Of course they’ll struggle to deal with the 7.0 stuff. That void is in part created because the Falcon, which should probably be about 7.3/7.7 ish as an SPAA is really good TD and thus is at 8.3.
But I really dont know what solution there is, if there even is a solution, as I also think SPAA also fully have the right to be able to defend themselves and there arent always aircraft to deal with.
That doesn’t make the proposal any better.
Both need the removal of the instructor otherwise it is lopsided.
Sure, but there are also a lot dying from a single 20mm… Looking at outliers is stupid.
That isn’t the primary demographic of WT. Since the Air battle modes combined have more players than the combined modes have… So statistically the primary demographic are the aircraft only players.
Nit what i said though.
I like how me being pedantic, triggered you this much.
Oh okay