Notching mechanics causing balance issues

[FeetPics]

@Panter2005

It’s not about making notching harder. It’s about making notching less effective, less powerful.

It’s about changing the meta, so that long range/less maneuverable missiles are also competitive.

How is reducing the notch angle / velocity gate to be lower, reconfiguring datalink, and potentially adding Link-16 and its equivalent…not making notching harder?

Making long range missiles harder to notch also means that missiles at closer ranges will be even harder to notch. So we are still going to be at the exact same place of Rafale + Eurofighter are only relevant planes. Or we make the missiles so powerful that notching is de-facto pointless and then maybe people will switch back to missile busses and just BVR people as they spawn since it would have much higher rates of effectiveness than it already does.

[Beeschurger]

@FeetPics

Making long range missiles harder to notch also means that missiles at closer ranges will be even harder to notch. So we are still going to be at the exact same place of Rafale + Eurofighter are only relevant planes

Except now there would be a legitimate, albeit asymetrical, balance - ARMAAM carriers could actually threaten enemies at range while MICAs/R-77s would still hold advantage at close range.

Current state of things is just unsustainable and will continue to get worse.

You could increase AMRAAMs range all you want, but it would only lead to people entering notch earlier, missile would get defeated all the same. What good is range increase when it does not include decrease to TtT?

[FeetPics]

Even with current notch mechanics it is not too difficult to defeat AMRAAM + similar missiles. Even if chaff was removed 40km shots would not work against experienced players. At the same time they would work far more reliably against inexperienced players which is predominantly what makes up the game mode and predominantly the kinds of players that experienced players find themselves against.

Current MICA mechanic is significantly hard enough to deal with that most experienced players will make sure France is on their side if they create the lobby.

Time to impact for R-77-1 is going to be better in most cases than AMRAAM if it is launched at 50km or under. Massive gimble limit on radar and superior flight performance will be an advantage over any US 4th Gen unless you look in terms of purely acceleration.

[Panter2005]

@Omarb13legends

So here’s my take. I’m sure you understand how big current matches are and there is almost always a guarantee that more than 1 missile is coming at you. Top tier is an absolute cluster and this has become a very notable issue. Nerfing multipath and chaffing would only make sense if the matches were smaller and the scale isn’t so ungodly overwhelming.

As of right now, there is absolutely no reason to nerf notching, because of just how many interactions you will have in such a short period of time. The average match in Air RB mind you barely reaches 10 minutes.

What needs to happen is that player count needs to decrease, or simply have varying levels of difficulty depending on the player count. What you end up doing nerfing notching is make the gameplay even less enjoyable as it is.

I agree.

I didn’t mention this, nor MCM, because I view them as a different category of issues. They completely ruin the game on their own, and literally any change doesn’t matter, as long as these issues aren’t solved. Any changes I think about are meant to work, when this category of issues is solved.

Spoiler

The actual reason I didn’t mention this, is because my post is air sim centric, but ofc air rb also matters.

@Omarb13legends

Also something else to keep in mind. You’re nerfing something that wouldn’t neccessarily even have to be nerfed if other problems were addressed before it. G-limit for example. A lot of these planes are able to pull into the notch quite easily and the pilots sustain well over 9gs.

@Omarb13legends

Unrealistic G loads, unrealistic weapon preformance for one shot kills, etc. etc. The list goes on. Then trying to fix all that by trying to apply realistic measures after the fact. It just doesn’t work.

I very much agree. Things irl work the way they work because of multiple factors. In order for it to also make sense in the game, all or most of those factors also have to be present.

People often think X thing being realistic would ruin the game (usually balance), when in fact it just needs Y and Z to also be realistic.

---

However, I’d like to see something actually happen and the game be balanced. I don’t see the G-limit for example being changed any time soon, if ever.

[Panter2005]

@Ninjato70x7-psn

So making notching harder. Any way you slice it, that’s exactly what it is.

@FeetPics

How is reducing the notch angle / velocity gate to be lower, reconfiguring datalink, and potentially adding Link-16 and its equivalent…not making notching harder?

It is making it harder, but the point is not to just make it harder for the sake of being harder.

The point is to make notching not reliable in some situations. Currently it can save you in pretty much any situation you put yourself in, and any person who learned how to notch basically can’t be killed if more than 3-5km away.

@FeetPics

Making long range missiles harder to notch also means that missiles at closer ranges will be even harder to notch.

@FeetPics

Current MICA mechanic is significantly hard enough to deal with that most experienced players will make sure France is on their side if they create the lobby.

Short range missiles aren’t good, because they are hard to notch.

They are good, because they can pull in at closer ranges, where the enemy can’t even pull into the notch in time, after launching his missile. The enemy dies because he never had the chance to notch it, not because the seeker resists notching. He impales himself on the missile.

@FeetPics

Time to impact for R-77-1 is going to be better in most cases than AMRAAM if it is launched at 50km or under.

Only if the target doesn’t maneuver I think.

@FeetPics

Massive gimble limit on radar and superior flight performance will be an advantage over any US 4th Gen unless you look in terms of purely acceleration.

Over the shoulder gimble limit is a massive advantage, but with current notching also makes for a bad game design.

Imagine 2 Su-30SM2s fighting. They both sit in the notch and launch missiles that will never hit. It would be hilarious to watch.

Perhaps if notching wasn’t such an immunity umbrella, having an over the shoulder radar wouldn’t be so OP.

---

As for the superior flight performance, yes. Even if notching was made less effective, top tier still wouldn’t be balanced. US would have to get F-15EX or something, F-15C GE is not an equal to Eurofighter AESA or Su-30SM2.

Currently even if US got F-15EX, it would still be much worse than its competition, because long range doesn’t matter.

At least 13.3, 13.7 and 14.0 would be balanced though.

[nesandınAMRAAM]

I think all these suggestions could be tested in the Nuclear Escalation playtest, which would be awesome.

Also, as another suggestion. Ditching the unrealistic missile status symbology would be a great idea as most ARH missiles in the game have only one way datalink thus aircraft has no way checking status of the missile in real time. They should be replaced with pitbull/impact timer based on the launch conditions. Datalink symbology could stay as it is often displayed at fcr in real life but there is no way to know where your missile is and actually tracking the target or not.

[FeetPics]

@Panter2005

Short range missiles aren’t good, because they are hard to notch.

So in your ideal world how hard will it be to notch an AMRAAM? Harder or easier than current MICA launched at 10-15km?

[Ninjato70x7-psn]

@Panter2005

It is making it harder

There ya go dude. It’s nice being honest with yourself, isn’t it.

I’ve said what I wanted to say about multi-pathing, notching and MCM. No need to keep circling 🤙

[Panter2005]

@FeetPics

So in your ideal world how hard will it be to notch an AMRAAM?

We’ve already discussed this, there’s no point in repeating ourselves.

I’m interested how would your ideal world look like though. How would you make Mirage 2000 with MICAs balanced against F-15C MSIP or F-15E with AMRAAMs?

[FeetPics]

@Panter2005

I’m interested how would your ideal world look like though. How would you make Mirage 2000 with MICAs balanced against F-15C MSIP or F-15E with AMRAAMs?

It already is about as balanced as it’s going to get. You could give amraam same notch resistance specs as MICA and it would be fine. There’s already a report for it too.

You seem to think that’s not the case though.

[Panter2005]

@FeetPics

It already is about as balanced as it’s going to get.

Surely balancing Mirage 2000 and F-15 in a game is possible. Mankind has solved more difficult issues.

Remember, in your perfect world, you can change anything.

[FeetPics]

Both planes are already balanced. Do you think it would still be unbalanced if AMRAAM had similar FOV to MICA? Or does notching have to be redone beyond that to make the F-15C “balanced”?

[TFS_64Mustang]

Tbf, not sure this really needs to happen. They are different BRs for a reason. 1 out of 4 rotations the mirage faces the 15C and its the top br, the other they are both getting dumpstered by top tier planes.

The BR system is there for a reason and we have rotations to eleviate large performance gaps.

If they were both 13.7 i would understand, and the logical choice would be just make M2K 14.0, which is already done.

[Panter2005]

@TFS_64Mustang

They are different BRs for a reason.

The 14.0 planes like F-15E or F-18C get trashed all the same, as their missiles are the same or worse.

M2K is also the most exaggerated example, but Su-27SM is also much, much stronger than F-15C or any AMRAAM carrier. Avionics difference doesn’t matter, if you have to see the enemy with your eyes and lock him with HMS anyway.

[FeetPics]

So we just basically want the 2024 meta back where US AMRAAM spam makes everything else irrelevant. Got it. Have to change the game because 5 people learned to play.

[Beeschurger]

@FeetPics

2022 meta

@FeetPics

AMRAAM

Pick one

[TFS_64Mustang]

Adjustments to DL alone would help narrow that gap. Only Russian jet at 13.7 that would see any meaningful benefit from DL reworks would be the KR. All flankers stuck with N001 and similars probably wouldnt see any noticeable benefits from DL reworks unless they were close enough anyways for IRST swaps.

If the 13.7 area were to see benifits from DL adjustments it would mainly be NATO jets and Chinese.

[FeetPics]

Typo.

This thread is just this one but new.

FOX-3 Top Tier Meta / Notching + Chaff is too easy / 60m multipath is fine

But I think then Me 163 met jets like MiG-9, not MiG-19 or MiG-21…

This thread also happened to coincide with the time when chaff was made to do nothing by accident. Realism advocates were happy with that change.

So how would you like the default state of your chaff to basically not work? Take current notch mechanic and make it so chaff is the same as current no chaff. And then make it so notching doesn’t work without chaff at all. Sounds fun right?

[MiGoon_Fox-3]

Pls no, let me enjoy my MiG-29KR and other low cm planes

[Beeschurger]

@FeetPics

Take current notch mechanic and make it so chaff is the same as current no chaff. And then make it so notching doesn’t work without chaff at all

Not gonna bother defending this hill since its not my position at all.

@FeetPics

So how would you like the default state of your chaff to basically not work?

The fix doesnt have to be chaff related. Im not settled on what the best solution would be, but i know current state of things for AMRAAM carriers is unsustainable.