After the flight model nerf it may need to go lower if it bleeds 50% more speed
1 Like
When it comes to imbalance between bomber and fighter, all you guys can think about is reducing the rewards of bases instead of increasing the rewards of fighters. For real, Gaijin?
1 Like
are they trying to tell me the tornado gr 1 is at a perfectly fine br? what a load of bollocks… cant say im much suprsied but still. load of horse shit about that stats as well. i can safely say 4 out of the 5 games you play in it you die before every reaching the bases as either you rush in and get focused by every enemy that sees you or you simply go round and the game ends up ending before you do anything as you wait the 10 minute timer for the bases to respawn.
just come out and say it gaijin, you dont want us being able to grind out tech trees using bombers when we could just spend money and get a premium fighter instead… wont stop me from still abusing the bombers any way i can to negate any kind of grind you force upon me…
For the love off player the a10 with aim 9l the a6 tram and su 25k all dose plane should be at least 10.7 none dose plane if you just go bay statistics it dosent work for player base one fose plane they be reking everything on 9.3 or everything dose have no flare the j.7 at 10.3 it way lower br brcause it one best dogfighting plane in game at pilot the i play air arb alot of the chnage are relly wrong as well make them go up in up br a10 all dose ground punddr there no jeed ti be lower br a6 tram can carry at least 3 aim l so no there battlel ratings it should stay on 10.7 also the base aa way to op the gun in air arb are still relly bad alot plane and intes putting down the br make them go up and extend the br
You forgot that you can just outrun everything. At 8.3 it would see Me262, MiG-9 and many other rather slow aircraft. Not fun to deal with that sortof thing. We dont need more Ju-288s.
So can the Sea Vixen at 8.7. Again… Based soley on the fact it has no guns and a max A2A loadout of 2x Aim-9Bs. I could make the argument to place it BELOW the Sea-Vixen with no gun and 4x Red tops and a flight performance that can outrun most other aircraft.
But AGAIN. Id only request it to go down to 9.0. Just to seperate it from the supersonic premiums like the F-5C that it has no hope in out running ever and basically always sees due to how many there are
if this is about the buc then im sorry to say but gaijin will never give us a lower br. i was able to get 20k rp per game along with 150k sl. soon after gaijin nerfed the base respawns and now there aiming to reduce the rp we get from bombing even more… they simply dont like bombers.
i simply dont understand why they even bother adding more bombers at this point as they simply hate players grinding in a way that doesnt pull out your hair. they want our money not our thanks.
2 Likes
Yeah, its pretty clear ARB is designed to be anti-bomber. At least its quite effective in ASB. Though the S2 needs its missing radar
1 Like
It has an uncaged seeker, so it isn’t a 9B one.
No, they said they will have a community vote some time in the future: either they keep the bombers at the BR they are now, and don’t touch the bombing rewards; or they lower the bombers’ (and strike aircraft’s) BR, but reduce the bombing rewards.
Because bombers/strike aircrafts that are competitive in air to air combat with the fighters at their BR will earn more rewards than those fighters on average because they can bomb bases and then fight on equal footing with other planes. and Gaijin aims to make all planes at a certain BR earn roughly the same rewards on average.
Alternatively you could just leave rewards as they are and reduce the battle ratings of the Tornados.
Because no, you don’t actually have to have only those two options. I don’t know why you as a company feel that you can’t increase rewards ever, but, believe it or not, you can. In fact, many people across the board would be very pleased if you, oh I don’t know, increased rewards such that the Grind were easier. Nothing wrong with that.
NO
NO NO AND NO!!
Do you not see the problem with letting people run around with all aspect 30G missiles at 10.0? A huge amount of aircraft at 9.0-9.7 run around with little to no flares!
This is precisely why you keep moving the MiG-19, F-104 down, and in turn moving everything else down. Because they cannot cope with an A-10 that essentially gets a free kill if you fly within 3km of it.
This particular bit is more egregious than anything else. Does that mean the Tornado ADV/F.3 gets to go to 9.3 because it has terrible flight performance after all AAMs are expended?
Those Air-to-Air Missiles on the A-10, Su-25, are the problem.
10 Likes
Spoiler
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1d2yk5n/su25_not_going_up_is_pretty_hypocritical_its/
Still think the Su25 shouldnt go up in BR for GRB because it gets no “fire and forget” weapons… the entire reason this is so oppressive is because at this BR it wont face ANY of the top tier SAMs at 11.7 due to being 10.0 so its top BR is 11.0 and at 10.0-11.0 it faces some of the worst SPAA/SAM systems that either dont have the vertical guidance OR its clapping other 1 lineup users who dont have something to counter it.
Do a yourself a solid and actually move this up to where it belongs (10.7-11.0)
2 Likes
IMO there should be a sort of variable BR for some vehicles, depending on their equipped loadout/modifications. Example that immediately comes to mind for me would be High-Tier Aircraft around 11.3, where BVR really becomes a thing. Flying a stock aircraft at that BR is a living nightmare because the second you fly higher than 10m off the ground, you get sniped by a radar missile and there’s virtually nothing you can do about that.
However, I do also see how making such a change could cause problems in other sectors, so here’s my proposal for that specific problem: do something similar like with night battles. Add the option to disable BVR, thus locking all loadouts with BVR missiles on your curent aircraft. Similar things could certainly also be done with other issues, however a word of warning on that front: solutions like these are somewhat easy to implement, but they’re not future proof and as the number of features in the game grows, so will the number of issues and long-term, I personally see only one true, future-proof solution to this: BR decompression, or better yet: a complete rework of the BR system.
Also, speaking of BRs: While I do kinda see your point with attackers - specifically the SU-25 -, I must say that the point of them being highly voulnerable after they’ve expended their missiles is kinda going in the wrong direction. They are ground attack aircraft, which - as the name suggests - are intended to attack ground targets. The reason why they even have to compete with other aircraft in the first place is because at the moment, ground targets are barely even worth the ammo you spend on them.
So here my proposal for that problem: keep the rewards for soft targets as they are right now, making them good snacks for Planes that just want to make use of their last few shots before RTB and a good way to tickle the enemy team, if they’re airfield-camping again. For harder targets that need specialized equipment, like bunkers, medium/heavy tanks, MBTs, bases and others (I think I remember bridges on some maps), you could increase the rewards, making Attackers more economical, thus making them less reliant on their air combat performance and in turn making it easier to move them up in BR.
The Su-25 specifically would be one of the planes which imo need that change the most, as - and I ask to excuse my language, but - I find it rather bullshit that the Su-25BM (premium) gets to sit at 11.0 with an R-73, while the earliest other Aircraft I could find with a similar missile (other than the Su-25T, which sits at 11.3 and is a tech tree plane) would be the F-15 with the Aim-9M, which the R-73 arguably outperforms.
Preferably, I would like to see the Su-25 at a BR, where it doesn’t need to fear planes with similar missiles, that can actually use them to their full effect, but also doesn’t get thrown into battles with lower tier planes that it can just dunk on. Sadly, in the current state of the game, such a BR doesn’t exist.
Hey look, we’re back at BR decompression. And to make it clear: yes, I can very much see the issue that some Attackers can’t defend themselves effectively before they unlock their strong missiles.
And variable BR is back as well, wow!
And thus, the circle of life closes.
2 Likes
Bomber’s and strike fighter’s primary role is not A2A nor should it ever be encouraged. The suggestion that they would hold a community vote on reducing base rewards so they can be a lower BR is tone deaf and insulting. They need to reward aircraft playing their roles, not force everyone to optimize in a single meta. Currently, base bombing is the best grinding method, if that suggestion is implemented, then only A2A is the best way to do it, completely ignoring the damage it does to strategic bombers. It was already a poor move to reduce ground A.I. rewards, now they are suggesting an even further departure from touching objectives. This is why ARB is so damn stale.
4 Likes
It has the exact same performance as the 9B one, it’s just uncaged before launch
Hi,
Thanks for putting out these forum posts so we as a community can have a conversation.
I want to promote two main points on the following:
- base Bombing at high tier
- strike craft with all aspects at 10.0-10.3
Base Bombing in High Tier
I’ve bombed bases at top tier long enough to understand that the biggest issue for bombers is the availability of bases. It changes every game which aircraft gets the bases first around 11.0 whether it’s a F-104, a Kfir, a Phantom, or a Tornado, it just changes from game to game and that may be why there tends to be no statistical significance in how some bombers are underperforming.
I present a couple solutions to the complaints of the community for base bombing:
1- Reduced Cooldown for the Respawning of Bases
- bases used to have a shorter cooldown which meant that even if You were in a subsonic strike craft, you’d be able to get bases after the SuperSonics as the bases would respawn roughly about the time You’d get to the bases and so no harm no foul. This was increased to the current count of what is it, 5 minutes? And since then the current issues have persisted.
2 - Increase number of bases and diversify spawn locations
- the current load outs of bases on maps are atrocious if You are not the FIRST one there. Your options are either Go to the left two bases or go to the right two. The staggering of bases directly in line with one another first of all leads to the ability for one fighter to easily take two bases and force half the team to drop their payloads aimlessly. Then, the other two bases being on the relative right forces players to fly straight into the furball of enemy aircraft while fully laden. These should not be the only two options for base bombers.
I propose there to be both depth to the base spawns and variety in location and count. Bases should use the wider map, not just the center third. Players should have options to go wide and get their munitions off. The formula for bases in enduring confrontation is better in this than in standard battles, but they suffer from the problem of staggering. Current layouts lead to multiple bases for singular aircraft which propagates the problem mentioned.
3 - Adjusted Rewards for base bombing between different aircraft archetypes
A tertiary solution could be found in simply adjusting the rewards for bombing bases between strike craft and fighters. You yourselves Gaijin have designated certain aircraft as fighters and others as strike craft. A look at Your statistics for base bombing probably doesn’t show strike craft as your biggest base bombers. Raising aircraft kills values for fighters while lowering the base payouts would drive fighters to stick to their role.
- strike craft with all aspects at 10.0-10.3
I think most of the community and I can agree that the biggest issue with the all aspect missiles at this BR is the compression with aircraft at 9.0-9.3. It’s going to be sounding like a broken record to You but we keep asking for Decompression as often as we do because it’s completely unfair to grant strike craft free kills in downtiers with defensive missiles. The purpose of these missiles on their airframes were for self defense, but the current state of the game displays the A10 as a missile boat that can arrive in the battle albeit late with up to 4 all aspects and just rain upon defenders subsonic jets with no countermeasures. Them performing poorly in uptiers is a fact of life for those airframes. Think of how difficult it was for You to balance the Maus? Your choices are either move them up along with the aircraft above them, or remove them, and we all know You won’t remove 6 aircraft from the game for this.
Increase the maximum BRs so that these strike craft can face the same aircraft they do in their current upper BR brackets while also making it so the aircraft below them don’t have to live in fear of being some strike craft’s easy pickings.
I hope this message is at least read, and my thoughts at least acknowledged. Again I appreciate You Gaijin employee for putting out this forum and just hope the community’s wishes are taken into account’
5 Likes
Unfortunately the problem is much, much greater than that. Gaijin claims to be balancing vehicles by how rewarding they are to play, and now want to ‘discuss’ nerfing some of this ‘rewarding behavior’ (base bombing) in order to reduce BRs?!
The entire system is all so cowed and nonsensical. Does anyone remember this post 5 years ago?
Gaijin built an ARB base bombing economy when a majority of the player base was bombing with propeller driven aircraft (and usually only about a quarter of the lobby). They lacked the foresight or internal development roadmap to envision a world where almost everyone in certain lobbies would have bombs and failed to reinvent or redesign the game mode in a way where the bombing reward algorithm they created would scale accordingly.
And now? Now we’re being told that those rewards are being used to BALANCE AIRCRAFT?*
What a mess.
*but only sometimes, sorta, maybe…
5 Likes
Asking the community is the opposite of tone deaf.
People have been asking for strike aircraft to be lowered (like the Tornado) because they can’t use it for air to air, or because they get clapped by actual fighters on their way to a base.
And them suggesting this change was based on community feedback. They didn’t come up with that themselves. They only brought up this suggestion because people keep asking for lower BRs for bombers and strike craft because they’re outclassed by any contemporary fighters. There was a big outcry when the seperate BR changes got introduced because people thought their strike aircraft would go down in Air Battles, not go up in Ground Battles.
It’s the faction of people like Defyn, who use anything as a fighter and find base bombing incredibly dull.
I’m against this suggestion but I also think their reasoning is at least solid. And I’m glad they don’t just do it but save it for a poll later on.
Base bombing isn’t even the best grinding method, it’s just the easiest to give alot of RP - but it’s also one that makes you an NPC in a PvP game, so I would get it if alot of people want others to actually contribute to a match instead of RP maxing by doing what a bot can do.
And lastly, what good does comparatively fast grinding do if you’re nothing but fodder in top tier matches because you have no experience in actually fighting other people.
1 Like
we had shorter cooldowns, they increased them to not throw all base bombers up in BR, because it made earning alot more alot easier. it also encouraged fighters even more to bomb first, fight later. if a plane earns alot more on average than the ones at its BR, it gets raised in BR.
Which would make base bombing easier, resulting in higher average rewards, resulting in being bumped up in BR.
while this could in theory be a good solution, I bet that fighters would still bomb bases because why not pick up free points, even if its a few less? you already can’t put the idea of good positioning over bomb points into people’s heads, they won’t understand it even if you cut their base bombing points in half.
At this point, I think the only solution is to take away bombs from all fighters in Air Battles. If their argument is “I am multirole, so it is my job to bomb bases too”, then take away their multirole. They can take their bombs in Ground Battles, but take them away for Air Battles. And also any high number of rockets as people would just use those instead. Low numbers to use as flares should be okay.
1 Like
It’s tone deaf because the community revolted last year because of terrible economic changes, and suggesting reducing rewards with no other indicated redistribution is the part that is tone deaf, further expanded below.
With how the game currently operates, this is a valid problem. However, the suggestion that to lower the BR they have to lower base destruction rewards is unwise at best. Bases are already a scarce commodity due to Fighter aircraft bombing bases that are almost always faster, forcing the attackers to either waste time by waiting for the 5 minute respawn or ditch ordinance to fight aircraft, a role they aren’t good at doing. They can’t reliably do anything to ground targets as they already stripped that RP and SL gain away shortly after the A-10s arrival. If base destruction rewards are reduced, the only valid method is to kill players for the most efficient RP gain. You might as well make it a team deathmatch only, as going for objectives is pointless and so are the aircraft dedicated to destroying them.
Because of “statistics”, aircraft dedicated to any sort of ground attack role cannot be placed in a BR where they can be competitive in A2A combat, in a mode that is devolving into almost exclusively A2A combat. Strike aircraft moving up in GRB isn’t much of an issue for me, that part is sensible. What isn’t sensible is reducing rewards to get a desired outcome for a BR placement. That line of thought is flawed in my view. It is a punishment for a non-award.
I have removed this Youtuber from my suggestions, similar to how MiketheEnginerd always uses teammate bombers as bait because he views them as useless. Incredibly toxic views that discourages variety simply because it lacks that fighter glory.
Sure, I’m happy this isn’t a sudden change, but I do not think their reasoning is valid. It does have merit, it makes sense based on how they do balancing and they were graciously clear about it. However, I have been vocally opposed to how they do balancing and the overall reluctance to space out vehicles (F-104s and Sabers, etc.) does not improve my opinion about it. I hold the opinion that rewards should not be reduced and at times the rewards are too low.
It’s not the best but it’s the easiest way to get RP? Wouldn’t that be the “best” way to grind? Base bombing is the most consistent and quickest way to get RP, those who are good enough can maximize this (see F-4S/FGR) by getting air kills with them or just run, since rewards are given by time. Even if you die quick, you can jump straight to the next lobby and do the same thing in less than 5 minutes. There is a reason why those who are fast enough prioritize bombing bases.
Because, unsuprisingly, no one cares about win/loss ratios or K/D ratios when it concerns grinding as fast as possible to get what you want. No one cares about being “useful”, they will mainly care about their own progress and experience.
Untrue, this was stated to be a bug, not a feature that was reverted. Also, there are normally more fighters blitzing to bases than there are bases to bomb in lobbys now. Nothing has really changed other than the dedicated aircraft are now shafted sonce they are normally slower.
Again, a very flawed way of “balancing” these aircraft. Let them be able to do their roles, stop faulting rewards being a problem to these aircraft.
A sensible idea, though may need a bit of refinement
4 Likes