Aye aye captain
The issue is the people demanding they get to play without any opposition, then for them to try massreporting players killing them
Yup, those are the players I always make sure to report. If you want to bomb bases, thats fine. If you ask for PvE and get ignored, whatever, dont care. Start trying to bully people into PvE only. Now you get reported for it.
“Passive behaviour” or “Other” seems to fit the best.
3 Likes
Thank you
(might be worth suggesting a better category for that being added)
3 Likes
People demanding pve is nonsense ( same as people whining about spawn camp) and mass report is useless if there is nothing to be reported, all you get is the “you have been reported”.
Farmers/Exploiters suck. Id rather they be gone both through reports and less rewards from the exploit similar to fighters rocket spamming bases to screw over bombers
PvE players can be removed by only one way - by eliminating any PvE activity.
In the light of disbalance and not good gameplay people will always try to play only PvE. Also, for some players even doing only PvE is not so simple task.
Banning or punishing those players is like treating the symptom but the source of the problem.
Not really. Those players can be dealt with without taking away the PVE aspect since that would completely deny the multirole capability of a plane. Flying with modern jets that can have full loadouts ready to deal with both air and ground is a key aspect.
At least… this is my personal take on it (Not the being able to deal with those guys part, as others already pointed out, you can report them).
3 Likes
If you do that, might as well delete half the aircraft in game as well, or drop their BRs way down. 0 point to something like the Tornado IDS being even in game without something to drop bombs on and if it has to dogfight, then I hope its BR becomes more like 10.7
1 Like
why not use “>”?
Removing PvE makes many planes obsolete to play.
Bombers will become useless, and any ground attack dedicated plane will now need to have their BR adjusted accordingly.
2 Likes
They’re easy pickings. I spaded my Mirage III C just hunting down F-111s. Most don’t even bother trying to dodge when under fire.
A good start would be making bases immune to rockets. Some form of penalty for being shot down by airfield AA like a 5 minute timeout before they can respawn or score reduction might also help.
1 Like
I do not propose to remove PvE activity. I mean that current gameplay and disbalance leaves no choice for some players to seek for PvE.
Absolutely agree. I am just saying that current gameplay suggests 2 options: punish PvE players or removing PvE activity at all, if we want to fight these players.
I prefer to change gameplay.
1 Like
The Su-25SM3, despite being equipped with R-73 missiles, is not well-suited for fighter roles. I personally use it as a fighter only in my custom missions alongside with striking purpose.
Similarly, the Su-34 cannot effectively compete with planes like the F-15 or F-16.
It’s no surprise that some players prefer PvE, as it often becomes the only way to earn rewards and enjoy the gameplay.
As for me, I view the SB mode purely as a means for grinding. I truly enjoy the game only in custom missions.
They already deal massively reduced damage but they should remain usable. they dont have a huge amount of other use at the moment anyway, but targets like airfields and Forward supply depots are exactly what would be hit with rocket attacks.
That would probably just result in people quitting more than anything else. I’ve been innocently hit by AF AA before from simply flying too close, and quite often other PvE targets like bases are within close proximity. Being kicked from the game essentially for that would be unfair and people would just exploit it by baiting people into their AF defenses.
All that needs to happen is the loss of score if you die within seconds of attacking an AF and the AF rammers go away. No need to go OTT on the punishments
1 Like
You could argue that some attackers are limited to playing objectives.
Take the SU25T . only 4 AAMs ( of which 2 are regular stinky R60Ms ) . Despite a suboptimal Air-to-Air weapon count , a great deal of violence can be obtained by using weapons that were meant for tanks against other players.
(image was taken from a lobby where i specifically joined to hunt people who force PVE)
2 Likes
I do not want to say you cannot use Su-25 for fighter role at all. It is just not well suited for this.
How many players can effectively use it as a fighter?
I meant to say airfields should be immune to rockets, not bases. In normal gameplay AA makes it very impractical to use rockets on them, they’re better used against bases or other ground targets. I don’t think it would affect anyone other than score farmers.
A loss of score just for that attack would be ideal, but I’m not sure how practical it would be to implement it. Another idea would be kicking players out if they die to airfield AA two times in a row. I’m just putting some ideas out there.
1 Like
I need to enable autohotkey to convert my “ø” into a relation sign and I cba to do it when I’m not coding or stuff. I have a really janky, weird keyboard set-up (plus battleeye might throw a fit if am playing WT) (Hungarian using keyboard with russian labels with Danish keyboard layout to type English because their original keyboard with this ergonomics broke and there wasn’t any replacement except for the russian variant, except russian variant is missing some keys near left shift so had to convert keys near enter with autohotkey).