10.3 is for ground RB, not air RB.
AAMs aren’t needed in ground RB…
Keep going with these nice and detailed explanations!
Love em, and keep up the good work!
Undoing the changes for the F-16 is a good thing, but the A-6E TRAM definitely doesn’t need the AGM-123 Skipper II when the Paveway II can easily obliterate all spaa from outside its range, even the Pantsir-S1 if it plays smart.
2 Likes
That’s because ARB is fundamentally flawed and should be fixed. Gaijin avoids admitting to it because moving a plane or two a battle rating or two once or twice a year is easier than fixing it. Fast forward an update or two players who play at BRs where the problem got pushed get a bit too loud so they move it again. Ad infinitum
2 Likes
I have a problem with the meter complaint, surely you can send an AMM to the Q5L in air RB to 10.0 so that your ground RB of 10.3 is also extremely reasonable, rather than boosting the BR with a single one of the interference
Now is the time to increase rewards for air-to-air combat, not decrease rewards for base strikes.
The decrease in base strike reward is no different from the overall decrease in reward we saw last year.
you need to Seriously consider increasing the rewards for air-to-air combat
18 Likes
I have some serious issues with the motivation for Battle Ratings in ARB. You claim that aircraft are deemed suitable at their battle rating if their earnings are similar to that of the average earnings of aircraft at that battle rating. However, this does not in any way prevent aircraft matchups that are unfair. There are a few different cases of this which I predict are causing aircraft with inappropriate battle ratings to remain unchanged.
-
Fighters with excellent flight performance and limited killing power. Aircraft such as the MiG-19S, F-104A and Lightnings. I will use the MiG-19S as a perfect example. The flight characteristics of this fighter are absolutely superb, it has very good MER, very good acceleration, good speed, great sustained manoeuvrability and much more. However it lacks instantaneous manoeuvrability and has a very low ammo pool, and no AAMs. This means that the MiG-19S cannot very easily kill people quickly, it has to use it’s excellent flight characteristics to kill enemies. This often requires achieving an energy or positional advantage, something that takes a while to do. Furthermore, without countermeasures, the farmer pilot has to give itself space from aircraft with strong missiles in order to do this. Ultimately, it means that this fighter cannot always get a high number of kills per match. Combined with its limited capacity to kill AI targets, it means that the MiG-19S is not very effective at achieving high SL rewards and I suspect does not rank particularly well on your efficiency metric. However, the MiG-19S flight performance means that a VERY large percentage of its opponents are essentially defenseless against the MiG-19S, forcing them to rely on error on the farmer pilots behalf to survive, let alone have a fair chance against him.
-
Attackers with excellent weaponry and very limited flight performance. These are the A-10/Su-25 type vehicles you described. I will take the A-10A Late as a perfect example. While the A-10 does have the ability to get quick kills with its excellent modern AAMs and strong CAS capabilities, it is simply too slow to evade enemy fighters and is often killed quickly and hence the SL rewards I suspect might be quite low. However, there are a few nuances to this. A lot of aircraft of this type (A-10A, A-6E TRAM, Su-25K) are premium aircraft that attract a lot of new players, and hence proportionally speaking, the pilots of these aircraft are much more likely to be inexperienced, hence contributing to worse performance. Furthermore, the A-10, while being a very ineffective fighter, has the capability to fire all aspects AAMs, in a lobby where the majority of fighters do not have countermeasures of any kind. In most aspects, It is not feasible for these fighters to defeat an AIM-9L or R-60M after it is launched. While it might be possible to avoid the altercation by simply keeping a distance from the A-10, this ‘No-fly-zone’ that has been created Is not conducive to fun gameplay for the majority of the planes in the lobby. The game should not be promoting fighters to avoid altercations with specific vehicle types altogether, so that they don’t have to face missiles they literally have no way of defending against.
I understand that what I am suggesting you do will make these aircraft uncompetitive in air RB and rank very poorly on your efficiency metric. However, it is beneficial for the health of the game - reducing the competitiveness of a few aircraft is a price that the majority of pilots are willing to take. Any matchup between the A-10 (or similar) and aircraft lacking countermeasures, is unfair. I am NOT trying to claim that the A-10 is effective, or is OP, or is even a good aircraft, these things do not matter. The A-10 is an attack aircraft, designed for the CAS role, it has AAMs purely to defend itself against superior fighters. It’s missiles should be just this, defense.
The same goes for the F-104s and MiG-19s. These aircraft are able to face other aircraft that literally cannot do anything about them, provided the Starfighter or MiG-19 do not make mistakes. The problem here is that these aircraft lack countermeasures, and so struggle against the aforementioned A-10 type vehicles. Moving those up will allow for these supersonics with excellent flight performance to be moved up also, greatly improving the health of the BR range.
The problem ultimately at its roots stems from the fact that deciding BRs based on SL earnings is flawed and allows matchups that are unfair. Switch to considering only fairness when deciding BRs and the community will thank you endlessly. And I am not saying that every single aircraft in a lobby should be evenly matched. It brings diversity to have occasional uptiers where you face somewhat superior aircraft, and downtiers where you face somewhat inferior aircraft, but these matchups should not bring about interactions that are unfair. I don’t CARE that this might make some vehicles very effective or ineffective SL grinders - you can change the multipliers if you wish to curtail those effects.
TLDR: BRs should only be decided by considering whether matchups are fair, and not by considering the SL rewards of vehicles, which can be artificially altered by changing the multipliers.
10 Likes
If the techtree progression reward for completing the base bombing mission in Air RB is being considered for a reduction, would it be possible to consider an increase to the ticket drain for completing that task ?
While strike aircraft near the top BR 's can somewhat counteract their relative weaknesses compared to dedicated fighters w/ advanced AAM weaponry or comparatively high flight performance, there are many attackers and bombers in the lower and middling BR 's which have very little or even no capability to fight offensively against dedicated anti-air aircraft. Due to the specific " single-spawn " nature of Air RB, this largely lends them to a playstyle which minimizes interaction w/ the opposing team 's players, which in turn creates a reliance on static non-player targets to perform actions against in a match, in support of their team.
A change which causes this optimal play to become less/non-viable for progression might be very unpopular to fans of playing these types of aircraft, as you have acknowledged in this devblog. W/ that in mind is it possible to reveal if any consideration is being, or may be put towards improvements to the " in match " impact of the basic gameplay loop for these vehicles in the event that the proposed base bombing reward reduction would be implemented ?
4 Likes
Once again Gaijin loses the plot. STRIKE aircraft aren’t supposed to be equals to FIGHTER aircraft.
19 Likes
no. the rewards Should NOT be reduced
Increase air to air rewards
20 Likes
What about T-2/F-1 ?
T-2 is going to have the same br as Ayit, which have access to CCIP, RWR, flares and even guided weapons.
F-1 at the same br as for example Su-22, Tornado, F-4F or even A-10 ?
1 Like
Amen! The Su-25K especially is a powerful CAS aircraft that deserves a BR raise in ground battles, but Gaijin is too focused on the statistics! Don’t they realise that vehicles have different types and skill levels of players, and that this will affect their performance in turn?
They say it performs poorly according to their statistics, but this doesn’t line up with my personal experience. I often see them wreaking havoc and harassing my team with great effect. I also see Su-25s crash into the ground and being piloted poorly. I suspect the latter drag down the performance statistic and keeps the aircraft from going up.
9 Likes
Personally, I think reducing the base reward is not a best way for balancing. If the rewards for destroying bases are too high, we can balance it out by increasing the air-to-air kill rewards.
Balancing upwards rather than downwards would be a win-win for everyone.
38 Likes
All aspect carrying attackers should be performing more poorly in air to air, their missiles are for SELF DEFENSE. Why should flareless planes at 9.0 and 9.3 be punished for this? Move the A-10, A-6, Su-25, AMX etc up in BR by at MINIMUM one step, honestly they should all go to 10.7 minimum IMO
22 Likes
I think it is more desirable to increase air-to-air rewards than to reduce base rewards recklessly.
1 Like
Lmfao balancing by economy might just be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
15 Likes
Yes, air to air rewards should increase to balance bases.
Changes should only ever increase.
3 Likes
They destroyed my favorite lineup in 8.7 in the USA (m3, m60rise, a4-e) and they also destroyed it in Israel 9.3, (Magach 7C, Machbet, Ayit) I’m very happy with the update, thank you…
1 Like
Even more since we fought through a Steam review bombing to GET a better economy.
Gaijin is on with their Flaws once again,… game is lost boys.
5 Likes
I mean, what if you put a BR 9.3 vehicle in your BR 11.0 slot?