Multipathing combined with IRCCM meta promotes lazy and bad gameplays. The current toptier jet games are just NOT FUN.
Imagine playing chess where one move makes your king completely invincible to everything except the opponent’s king (IRCCM). It undermines the challenge and strategy the game should offer. That’s what multipathing is doing to AIRRB and SB right now.
Yes, 16v16 can be overwhelming, especially with coming fox3 missiles. Gaijin should consider reducing the match size (which they are trying to do now) instead of maintaining the multipath meta, which is neither realistic nor enjoyable.
I’ve seen that many players who support multipathing do so with the mindset, “I am and I would be the underdog in proper BVRs, so I must be provided with a cheesy way to bypass BVR challenges.” They often use being stock as an excuse, saying things like, “I don’t have radar missiles and need an easy way to survive against players with better weapons.” However, all players start stock, and everyone has the opportunity to unlock modules. The playing field is actually level, despite the grind being challenging. This underdog mentality often reflects a reluctance to adapt and learn new strategies. For certain planes that have poor chances surviving without multipathing, like Tornado, that’s actually a very small balancing issue and should not be brought up to the entirety of game mechanic design.
This mindset is not only lazy but also detrimental to the game’s health. It’s important to embrace challenges and be willing to grow, even in a game. Encouraging diverse and realistic gameplay mechanics will ultimately benefit the entire community.
There are certainly other ways to create balance, like making chaff more effective or missiles easier to notch. Much in the same way they’ve nerfed IR missiles in the past. (If necessary, we don’t actually know what the effect will be from these changes when they hit live)
A “safe zone” just creates more balancing issues than it resolves in my opinion.
And even in the case of the tornado. I’d rather employ it’s nearly 400 CMs plus the additional 210 chaff it could get to evade and defeat an ARH at long range, than to be forced to enter Aim-9 range and hope I can out run aircraft like the Gripen or Su-27 in hit and run attacks.
MP changes change the dynamic for these lower agility fighters, but I don’t think inherently change the status quo.
Smaller team sizes and better maps are certainly needed, but they are needed regardless of MP. As are changes for stock grind like making chaff stock
I’m not sure we need another thread on this topic. Regardless, the real annswer is multipathing should be represented as authentically as possible, including being different per missile. Simple as that.
This is the only option that is both true to the spirit of WT, and also prevents dumb “skill issue” screaming and mudslinging (from both “sides”).
I’d love full realism when it comes to MP heights for various missiles. Especially for Sim. But I get a compromise is needed for “gameplay reasons” and 50m does seem a half decent middle ground to start with.
From what I can tell from the dev server gameplay (so small sample size, take with a grain of salt), the ARH’s arent particularly harder to notch necessarily atm, atleast not moreso than the current missiles (7M, 530D, 27ER, SeperTEMP, AIM-54C) we have on the live server, which is supported by their seekers being largely similar to those already ingame. These missiles also dont have any MPRF modes, making them just as susceptible to being decoyed at bad aspects (side/rear).
They also dont appear to be anything special kinematically compared to the 7M, sitting somewhere between the 7M and R-27ER in impact velocity and TTI iirc. The biggest change they offer is sufficient g overloads to reliably intercept targets at high closure rates (27ER already offered this) and launch and leave capabilities at shorter range.
I could be completely wrong, but in their current hypernerfed state, I dont see any reason to nerf them even more, atleast not until more testing on the live server is performed. It seems fights can still somewhat reliabl;y make it to a merge, or near one with some defensive flying on both ends, and in the situations where both planes have fox 3’s, theyre kind of self limiting in kill potential, as both pilots try to gauge the optimal launch range for the missile to still have enough energy for intercepts even through cranks without they themselves putting themselves at unnecessary risk. This might change a bit once people have more experience and a better feel for approximate pK% of their missiles in varied scenarios, but i think gaijin should start with bringing the fox 3’s and 50m MP to live before they go nerfing stuff more.
This smells an awful lot like the situation with the 9M where everyone and their grandmother were panicking about its flare resistance, and the CC’s were even saying “there’s no way its coming to the live server with this flare resistance”, and it did come to the live server, and people adapted…
That being said, like @BleedingUranium mentionned, another thread on this topic is kind of excessive, theres already 2 major ones and some other smaller ones.
Yep. from my testing they are pretty handy in a fight, able to nail targets off-boresight quite effectively but are fairly easy to defeat at both long range and short range currently. With the only real exception being when guided onto target with a hard-lock at closer ranges. But then so can SARH under the same conditions.
I dont think ARH will need much of a nerf (if any). But the option remains there IF they do. Even in lower performance airframes like the Tornado F3 and Sea Harrier FA2. I was not killed once at any meaningful range by an ARH, and when I was, I would have been just as vulnerable to an Aim-9 or similar IR missile, which I would have struggled to defeat just as much due to the current state of BOL.
I had the exact same thought. I think a LOT of this is fear over what ARH might be like on the live server. But just how Aim-9Ms have become barely an upgrade over Aim-9Ls (in terms of flare resistance) in my opinion. Im really doubting ARH will actually be all that deadly. I actually think the aircraft that would benefit the most from the MP changes are the 11.3 SARH carriers and not the 12+ aircraft
Games like WT have a business model that is structured in such a way that users purchase time savings and comfort.
So essentially, there is a trade-off where users can pay if they find stocking difficult, and if they don’t want to pay, they pay for the time and stress in exchange.
By that logic, fundamentally, stock difficulty is no excuse at all, and even just WT has modes like the Air Assault mode, which is a free aid to the stock grind.
It should be a disadvantage for gaijin to listen to their requests, which they really don’t want to pay for.
That is an impossible factor to judge unless you are in charge of the economic section of gaijin, and if gaijin really felt that way, research would be easier than it is.
Moreover, this topic is limited to the highest ranks of WT.
In games with such a business model, the lower ranks are free and easy to play, but the higher ranks become more difficult and are generally designed to make users want to pay for the game.