I don’t agree at all. every day I cooperate with strangers in games. we go around together, we do pincer maneuvers to surround an enemy, I use the drone to ping enemies who have destroyed themselves, etc etc.
so I don’t know if you play a lot but teamwork happens quite often
This really depends on the map and how aggressive the flank is. If you just sit and wait for aggressive flankers to show up any vehicle will work, especially since full stabilization isn’t common there, so someone sitting will have a massive advantage from that alone.
If Air is entitled to their own sovereignty, other military branches are as well.
If Air has it’s own standalone mode, others should as well.
If other modes have player controlled CA, Air should as well.
Once again, equality is important. Saying otherwise is pretty biased not gonna lie.
Easily solvable by shrinking down maps and introducing air spawns with higher speeds.
Air spawns already existing only for a select group of vehicles already shows there are some unbalances with the mode itself. You could also fiddle with spawn variables such as spawn spots/height/speed to optimize if needed.
AAB and GRB already have air/multiple spawns that are subject to camping or disadvantage. No reason for ARB to not follow suit, since it opens up a wide variety of options, making things more interesting.
Totally ignoring a large part of the game is far from ideal. Also, 9.0+ isn’t top tier, 11.0+ is.
Everyone looks at the vehicles’ performance when spaded. Game balances vehicles with spaded status in mind, not stock.
If something is part of their kit, it should be looked at as a pro/con, as they’re bound to have it.
And you certainly don’t see people running around yelling how PT is crap because it has APCR as stock. Quite contrary, most things I’ve heard about PT is about how strong it is as HEAT ignores armor.
People don’t really care about stock status, rightfully so.
Kursk is still bigger than your average map, with squares being 500x500m at maximum. Big maps such as Red Desert and Pradesh being added a few years back is also weird if “players” are all for smaller maps.
Only valid player feedback is through an in-game poll, where all players can easily cast their opinion.
It’s much more likely that Gaijin is doing things how they want and how it suits them to progress, player opinion isn’t that important as we haven’t had in-game polls for literally every major change.
People have been fighting map ensmallening in GRB for months, but Gaijin still did it and will continue to do so. Player uproar doesn’t concern them greatly.
Is that really the case though ?
Players weren’t asked if they’d want to have Ground maps cut down by 40% with a cheap use of Red zones of death, but here we are. If it happened to GRB maps without any warning, I don’t see a reason why ARB maps should be an exception that require “special seal of approval” from the players.
I haven’t seen Gaijin asking GRB players if they wanted Helicopters or Strike/Recon Drones.
Sorry but WT is far from utopia.
Not really after seeing all the changes brought up to Ground modes without any consultations.
Again, equality is key, no one deserves preferential treatment.
Development budget for Air modes is close to zero considering how many and impactful changes it received in a decade.
See what I wrote above, GRB players weren’t asked for their wishes about anything, but everything still came out regardless.
Not really, as AAs would be totally optional picks, meaning CA aspect wouldn’t even need to happen in some instances. Aircraft would still remain undisputed king there, as they should. I don’t see a problem in this.
Large overhauls are a perfect time to introduce novelties into the mode, as it is easier to balance it out from the get go. Seeing how striker/bomber players are deprived of fair and balanced gameplay in their own mode for years now, tells me Gaijin isn’t really caring what their players think or feel.
Keyword being potential.
Game isn’t forcing anyone to take/use AAs, so relying on that is, as I said, naive.
Great, let’s just stand still and hope we aren’t seen by something that we couldn’t realistically counter from the start. I’m sure faith is in our own hands, right ?
You were in that position because he tossed a bomb on you. In most non-AA vehicles you’d only have one option, which is to run away. Doesn’t really seem suitable for a PvP game.
Not really.
Ground vehicles can do this by simply altering their BRs slightly if needed. Only outliers here are aircraft, since most non-AA vehicles won’t be able to realistically counter them, which is inherently unbalanced.
Only solution to this problem is to make a new mode for people that aren’t fine with this inherent unbalance.
You missed my point entirely.
Humans are vulnerable to .50 cal bullets, but hitting someone who’s barely moving from 100m is much easier than hitting someone who’s running like crazy at 250m of distance.
I’d say more important to this than size is usually the sort of map it is (Battle/Conquest/Domination).
Generally speaking, flankers will invariably impale themselves on anti-flankers if given the chance to…they’re being forced into exactly the sort of frontal engagements they’re trying to avoid.
There’s a bit more complexity to it:
Sovereignty means other modes’ affairs do not influence another (a la RB GFs meddling with RB AFs). The air modes exist as they are because they are what built the game and the other modes followed–it doesn’t mean the Air modes are special or favored (though they do get the credit of paving the way for what followed). Other modes already have their own sovereignty, which is evidenced by existent splits in BR to fit appropriate capability reflections.
As for player controlled surface units (GFs or NFs) in the air modes, the lack of these is essentially down to the mechanics (range especially) preventing this. Players are already hard pressed to find their way into SPAAs at all (even on the smaller maps of GFs modes), asking them to sit by in the far larger maps of the Air modes where even getting an enemy into targeting range is a tremendous ask…the odds are that player don’t want that.
My concept for an EC-esque setup with an RB AF battle taking place over top of multiple RB GFs matches was left alone largely because I understood that the basic concept of such a large battle won’t sell in WT…players don’t want to go with such things (at least for now). The same applies for player controlled surface units as a matter of player patience and attention span (which I don’t really blame them for–it’d probably be boring).
Catering to individual modes as they need to be tended to is proper and equal…it’s just doing what has to be done.
Attempting to impose the same uniform ideas upon everything, even in very different scenarios, is equity–and that is a recipe for disaster.
…if the players of the mode approved of that, I’m sure they’d be accepting of it. However, it cannot simply be imposed on them to make the SIAM idea work.
The mere proposition of SIAM does not entitle the concept to impose itself upon the mode.
The responses and implementation of different spawn locations for various vehicles do not prove imbalances in themselves. Rather, they showcase the different capabilities of the vehicles (a la attackers versus fighters or fighters versus bombers) and what they’re geared towards (bombing as opposed to climbing).
Arcade Air and GFRB are two very different modes from RB AFs, not least of which because they are multi-spawn modes where RB AFs is not. What goes on in those modes is frankly irrelevant to RB AFs, nor can what occurs in them be taken as gospel as to what would happen in RB AFs with similar mechanics implemented (modes vary).
Again, you’d have to put it before RB AFs’ players for acceptance if you were lobbying for it…otherwise it’d be depriving those players of their voice over their mode.
I didn’t say I was ignoring that range, I was declining to comment on it.
As for what is/isn’t top tier, 9.X is a major transitional range for a long list of technologies, both in AFs (ex. supersonic aircraft) and GFs (ex. targeting equipment) alike. It’s a reasonable cutoff period for that reason, though the exact definitions of tiering vary by player.
It certainly seems that way…there’s a ton of vehicles with unpleasant grinds because of their module journey, I know that. Even so, that still does not negate the reality that capabilities vary with vehicles’ upgrade status…that’s just a fact of how the vehicles are.
I’m not saying that vehicles’ non-spaded statuses necessitate BR changes or anything, but that is how it is.
Perhaps not in retrospect…but at the time, I can tell you stock vehicles provoke a lot of consternation.
For many, not every vehicle winds up spaded because of how miserable the stock grind is. (Which is all up to personal play choices.)
A compulsory in-game poll would be ideal to make sure all active players’ responses are heard…
As for the other commentary, I’d have to say that take is as speculative as my own, as there has been similar polling previously (albeit not compulsory).
Leaning into the things generating uproar will not help.
If anything, pushing to cut down map sizes (in RB AFs, over player objections) hurts the point you’re trying to support (respect for players’ wishes) because it emboldens Gaijin to proceed with such unpopular moves.
You won’t find me sympathetic to the goofy restricted zones recently put upon RB GFs–I think they’re needless and counterproductive.
In line with that, I can tell you spreading that problem around to other modes and ignoring their players’ needs/wishes isn’t a solution (advocating for modes’ needs on a case by case basis is).
This reminds me of my first encounter with a helicopter in WT was in the T-44-100 (in its first use):
Before my T-44-100 burned up (1st gameplay, so no FPE (this was before free FPE)), I shot down the helicopter with the commander MG…so it was a clean shoot.
If it was a few games later with the T-44-100, I’d have brushed off the whole encounter easily.
Personally, I used helicopters for a brief period (I played a handful of matches in some a few months back for a completing Battle Pass task) and wasn’t impressed with their yield nor do I care about the matter of drones (they just seem goofy and out of place (less for chronology as just balance per SP costs).
I don’t have much affection for either personally, as I’ve not gotten attached to them and think their presence is a bit of the top tier slipping away from itself (top tier’s highest BRs were ~9.X when helicopters first arrived). If someone wanted to critique these things, they’d probably have to come at it from the angle of top tier balancing or something of the like.
Still, drones and helicopters do have a reasonable claim to RB GFs as aircraft under the principles of the mode…they are aircraft in the mixed mode.
The sea change I’d be worried about would be the introduction of technology based direction/guidance (rather than player skill-based) methods…those are a more concerning matter IMO.
I didn’t say it was…consensus =/= unanimity.
The air modes are not being given “preferential treatment” in having reasonable accommodations in them. These modes have to be reflective of their own needs, players and vehicles…that’s why they are their own modes separate from others.
Whatever changes in the Ground modes you are referring to are, ultimately, irrelevant to the Air modes and their maintenance because of the modes’ separation. What occurs in the GFs modes has no direct bearing on other modes nor should it.
Trying to impose a cookie cutter outlook will only bring negative results…you cannot force different things to work with the same treatments, it just doesn’t make for success.
It is true that the Air modes have been neglected–but aside from the amusing commentary that raises about the alleged favoritism toward aircraft, that doesn’t change the costs associated with changing the mode in favor of very foreign ideas (or, more precisely, the implications of them).
To change something like map sizes to impose something like SIAM would be depriving that mode’s players of their venue to impose an alien concept (player controlled surface vehicles on far larger maps in a mode meant for aircraft). Overall, something like SIAM would be shifting the focus and gearing of the mode away from its central vehicles (aircraft) and toward something that would likely have serious balance implications if it was even played at all.
Even though I liked the CA idea I specified above, I never advocated sweeping mode changes to implement it…I respected that it’d need players’ buy-in to progress forward; SIAM is no different.
Like TO, SIAM would probably have to be on a trigger queue to have any sort of serious entertainment at implementation. Outside of that, I don’t see the concept selling.
Personally, I don’t rely upon others for it. If I really want to deal with the aerial flank, I tend to it myself. Outside of that, I operate knowing the risks involved with a (potentially) unchecked flank in the sky.
That’s about as reasonable as one can be I’d say…it’s just taking responsibility for or at least acknowledging conditions.
There’s a long list of GFs vehicles that see one another but cannot reasonably fight other vehicles in their natural BR range…but nobody bats an eye this.
I don’t go out in my T77E1 (BR 3.7) expecting to slay an SMK (also BR 3.7)…yet they are the same BR and it may kill me while I can do essentially nothing to the big heavy tank. Sometimes, defeat just happens and different vehicles wipe out their opponents. On that basis, I personally find the presumption that every vehicle should be able to successfully fight/kill every other vehicle as entirely flawed.
I doubt Gaijin can make every vehicle in WT vulnerable to every other in a realistic manner–unless out and out WoT-like health bars were brought in.
You’re entitled to your opinion, as am I–hence the comment immediately above.
Aircraft are essentially just aerial flankers in the CA mode, which leaves inattention to them (the sky actually) little different than carelessness with any other sort of flank. Ultimately, I see this less as an ‘inherent imbalance’ matter as just a weeding out of what teams are keeping themselves well versed and which aren’t.
As for TO as a ‘solution’ to this, people are free to pursue it…though the idea has stalled out and languished for the bigger part of a decade now (mid-January will be the 8th anniversary of Silkmonger’s old thread). If you want to try for it, go ahead…successfully realizing this will be a big haul.
Based upon this and mechanical needs (split BRs, population spacing, etc), I would have to say TO’s likeliest path forward is the trigger queue concept.
Not really–especially as the pilots are also humans. My point on this was that crew vulnerability is something that comes with the vehicle…it doesn’t really change mid-match, so it’s taken as a given upon spawn.
As an aside:
The merits and matters of their vehicles as it relates to pilot survivability often seem “forgotten” by the game (for instance: pilot sniping an Hs 129 with MGs happens, even as it should be improbable if not impossible due to armor).
Considering the insta-death implications of pilot sniping, this is an issue for aircraft with balance issues attached to it.
As I said, not quite the case.
As a flanker you should know what spots you can reach on the map without heavier units realizing that. If said units see flank is empty they’d either have to go elsewhere to look for kills or push the flank themselves, getting ambushed by a fast flanker that’s already in his spot.
Ah yeah, BR split that came after a decade and most likely because Air TT has vehicles more than 1 BR above Ground TT (13.7 vs 12.0).
You are not reading what I’m saying.
First of all, many AAs in GRB are bad at their job, sometimes even being totally outranged by things they should counter, not to mention the constant threat from ground units. There’s a good reason why they aren’t so popular in there.
Second of all, with ARB maps getting smaller and introducing much more capable AAs (for respective BRs) that are very strong (should have same SP cost as aircraft in GRB) I think their popularity would skyrocket.
People like to play strong things, it’s in their nature.
If Air has a standalone mode, Ground could have it as well. Nothing is stopping that from happening. Air is not needed in order for GRB to work.
Idea of player controlled AA in multi-spawn ARB is pretty achievable and will bring more meaning to ground-pounders which are neglected for years now. And also, games might even last for more than 2 minutes with this system.
As I said earlier, players didn’t have to approve anything in GRB, those things came regardless.
Still you haven’t said anything why ARB couldn’t be a multi-spawn mode, which I’m proposing. AAB proves aircraft can work in an multi-spawn/air spawn environment.
As I said earlier, no I wouldn’t.
Top tier is an objective definition.
And people are still comparing vehicles at their spaded status.
If you want to hear opinions of the mode’s players, in-game poll would be the only choice for that happening. Using other venues to “hear” players out should be disregarded.
I’m just trying to say that Gaijin doesn’t really need to ask mode’s players for permission to do anything, as it’s been proven multiple times over the years.
The point I’m trying to support is equality for all, so if players from GRB couldn’t express their feelings and wishes, don’t see why ARB players should be able to. Trying to do things otherwise is clearly biased.
Both of our stances don’t matter because Gaijin went with the change without even bothering to ask players of that mode. Not only that, it was a silent change that was never announced, so you could see people in shock posting newly changed maps.
With that happening in GRB, trying to reason with players and respect their wishes just for the ARB mode would be biased.
Helicopters with SACLOS guidance can see things at 7.3, or in some cases 6.7. They are affecting a large part of the game.
Meanwhile ARB isn’t even capable of catering to it’s vehicles equally, which is funny. Lacking some juicy and high-valued targets (700SP expensive player controlled AAs) on the ground to destroy might just be the reason behind it.
If air/ground and air/air engagements can happen in GRB effectively, no reason why it couldn’t happen in ARB, with minimal changes as well.
Not really, as aircraft would remain the focal point.
Multi-spawn, CA ARB would make things more interesting, as they’d have more options to pick from and use in a single battle. Players might need to spend more time/RP/SL to remain fully competitive, but that’s the name of the game.
No, Air-only would have to be on a trigger queue.
You can’t teleport to your AA without dying in your current vehicle first. So you’re countering the problem after it already caused harm, which isn’t good enough.
T77E1 is an AA so it’s main reason of existence is to counter air units. In TO, vehicles like that won’t be needed, so it would remove yet another unbalance.
Fun fact, T77E1 and M16 (both AA) are only two vehicles from US 2.7 - 3.7 lineup that can’t deal with SMK.
It’s clear non-AA vehicles follow this presumption, with very few exceptions outside AAs and aircraft which are mutually connected and shouldn’t exist on their own.
They can be as vulnerable damage wise, but actually hitting a pilot in his aircraft is much harder than strafing barely moving vehicle.
If some lightweight flanker runs into a frontal engagement with something heavier (especially really heavy) performing anti-flanking duties, it doesn’t really matter when the lightweight realizes it: they are (at best) in a pickle then and there…and outrunning cannon fire is probably not an option.
If that heavy can perform the anti-flanking role while also being able to fire into the map’s center too (as is often the case), it’s only better off than the lightweight which relies upon flanking to kill.
Split BRs were not a mechanic previously, but they do evidence the difference now. (The separation of modes is self-evident…they’ve divided apart.)
Further, most GFs vehicles of the highest ranks are newer than their airborne peers: many GF vehicles are 2000-2010s vehicles while aircraft aren’t even into the 2000s yet. (ARMs aren’t even in the game, despite their age and relevance)
Vehicle effectiveness is, to a large extent, controlled by the player using it and the team surrounding it…measuring this is approximate/subjective to a significant degree
That SPAAs are vulnerable to ground vehicles is, relatively speaking, irrelevant (aircraft are vulnerable to other aircraft too)
A major complaint about SPAAs is the ‘boring wait’ they experience when aircraft are not around, which is often seen in RB GFs due to battle dynamics and population (relatively few aircraft spawned per number of GFs spawned).
Adding that onto the distances of the Air modes’ maps (nevermind their often problematic geography (like vertical “roads”) to traverse and SIAM runs into serious viability troubles…
You talk as though this is all settled…
Reducing the size of Air modes maps is not something that’d mesh well with their mechanical needs or players’ wishes
Though it’d be subject to BR alterations, the implication that SPAAs would be “much more capable SPAAs that are very strong” sounds like framing undertiering as the norm for them…that would constitute an unacceptable favoritism to the SPAAs and thus anti-aircraft bias
Anti-aircraft bias certainly has no place in the Air modes.
The mere presence of the Air modes is not something that entitles GFs to their own exclusive mode…the Air modes are as they are because they were the first modes, which enabled the others to follow.
GFs could have a similar mode–with sufficient resources to make it function–but all indications from Gaijin and the playerbase indicate a more modest effort (like a trigger queue setup) is the better avenue to go (and even that is not guaranteed acceptance).
SIAM is a speculative idea with very little discussion to it, much less popular acceptance and understanding. All of this is grand talk…but without more input from the Air modes’ players, it is little more than that.
As for 2 minute games…I’m not sure what you mean by that except maybe exaggeration. Even the lousiest stomps in the Air modes tend to last a bit longer than that.
Player controlled helicopters and drones are player-spawned aircraft, which are half the mode in the mixed arena that RB GFs is. In a plain reading of RB GFs’ terms, those vehicles were little more than a straight drop-in.
I don’t really care for either of those sorts of vehicles, so don’t take the above as an endorsement of them–I just see this as how Gaijin could implement them straight-in.
AAB doesn’t prove anything as it relates to RB AFs, as they are two different modes (and two different sorts of MM as well).
There are a variety of challenges that face the idea of multiple spawns in RB AFs (which is a far more ambitious idea that is separate from SIAM), but I have declined to say RB AFs “couldn’t” be a multiple spawn mode if the players wished for it to be so.
I can elaborate on recognized challenges if necessary (spawncamping is only one of many), but there seems little point with the idea at such a speculative stage right now.
Both SIAM and multi-spawns are proposing major changes to a mode they’re alien to…that’d have big implications for the mode’s players and they’d want consultation on it.
Not really…I don’t think Gaijin has ever given hard ranging on this and it has varied over time (9.X was previously the limit back when helicopters first started arriving), hence my broad reading of the terms.
That could be…but, in the interim, capabilities will still vary and so it is incorrect to plainly presume all vehicles as spaded. Undoubtedly, many are never spaded (lots of folks move beyond vehicles used without spading them).
I was referring to in-game polling, not another venue…they’d be compelled to reply to the poll before playing for instance.
I’m not sure how RB GFs players have been deprived of expressing their thoughts and wishes…they’re still allowed to post on the forums, in chat and wherever as they want. They are still speaking freely, as we see here.
Likewise, we’d need the same sort of freedom for Air modes’ players if changes to their mode were sought…particularly given the rather foreign nature of SIAM and MS for RB AFs, especially as it is the legacy mode.
Not really…if anything, bowing to the trend and accepting capricious map changes would only embolden Gaijin to continue with/worsen unpopular changes. Reversing ‘mistaken’ trends, rather than spreading them, is how to achieve progress.
If Air mode players wanted smaller maps and accepted them, having those changes would be different…but forcing them over the players’ wishes is a whole different matter.
Even when I’m playing 7.X, which is often, I seldom see helicopters at all–nevermind on a spree.
Based on that, I cannot say I take the threat of them too seriously…they just haven’t evidenced much of that and I do watch for them. Haven’t seen it…
I previously spoke about the flaws and neglect of RB AFs before, so I don’t have to go over that…I was referring to aircraft as a class there–not specifics.
As for the latter bit…I think you’re misunderstanding the TDM mindset of RB AFs (directly related to the above) and how that would likely make SIAM irrelevant. I’m not endorsing that irrelevance as something I desire…I just don’t see how you could make the SPAAs the way you portray them without steering (skewing) the match to make it so.
How often do you play RB AFs?
It’s been a few years since I played for any serious length (more than a handful of matches), but the general gameplay of RB AFs is centered on fighters in a TDM setup…the interaction with GFs is limited (which is why SIAM would almost certainly face struggles unless the mode was skewed to artificially help it).
Eh…I’ll just say this is very speculative at this early stage. Further discussion can be had in a relevant topic directly on SIAM and MS.
Perhaps this is an attempt at humor–but otherwise, no.
The Air modes have stood up for over a decade and they still attract thousands to queue up for their gameplay daily…the idea that they’d be on a trigger queue setup is good as a joke, but not reflective of reality.
SIAM, as merely a perspective proposal currently, doesn’t have the clout to subjugate the modes that built the game.
I suppose you missed what I’d written on this before (this posts have been quite lengthy), but I already mentioned I support implementing despawn points for GFs (probably capture points and team spawns) and SP rebates for vehicles used.
That should clear all that up.
Putting aside the ‘political’ implications excluding SPAAs from TO could generate, I will point out that there are many other GFs vehicles with limited means to attack other GFs in their nature ranges. (The T77 is not the only vehicle of its BR range that cannot meaningfully fight heavy foes, nor are SPAAs the only sort that fall into this category–and that’s just within 3.7…)
To achieve the desired effect you talk about (anyone’s equal chance to hurt anyone else), you’d have to equalize everything…ergo, health bars a la WoT. It’s a very different vision than WT as-is.
Eh…even there there is variation to this that makes this more complex. For instance: an aircraft flying directly toward you (as in an attack) is actually not moving too much relatively.
Overall, these matters related to balance and mode development are very complex. Still, I’m open to talking about the concepts raised like SIAM (and MS), though that’s probably best done in their own thread.
Please do not ruin air even more by doing that. Small maps+airspawns will mean that top tier planes would be able to fire the moment they spawn in.
Air should stay standalone it can’t be balanced well otherwise. Ground should stay combined arms until it is proven that CAS/SPAA can’t be made balanced and enjoyable.
I just want RB EC, we don’t need multiple spawns in regualr ARB modes. It will cause more imabalance and will make everything worse. Players without multiple planes at the same BR will be essentially useless, and there just aren’t enough planes for some nations to make lineups.
The only multi spawn mode ARB players want is some sort of EC mode.
Exactly, don’t screw over other modes because you dislike something about a different mode.
The community needs to be consulted before a change such as that.
Again, you should know what spots you can take before something heavier comes into your LoS. This is mandated by the huge discrepancy in HP/t.
As I said, top aircraft is still more than a 1 BR above top ground units so something had to be done.
What does year of introduction have to do with anything we’re talking about here ?
Even devs acknowledged that CAS is brokenly OP in the latest Q&A.
According to our data, the balance at the top ranks of ground battles is noticeably shifted towards aviation and helicopters, and this balance has become even worse with the introduction of top aircraft this year. The situation where aircraft can attack tanks from a safe distance with impunity makes gameplay more boring for aviation and less fair for ground vehicles, a similar situation is with helicopters equipped with long-range fast ATGMs, or “fire-and-forget” ATGMs.
Nothing you do can help you if the enemy is outranging you. This blatant outrange problem starts from basic helicopters with ATGM and gets progressively works.
Aircraft are optional so you might as well be the only one flying.
SPAAs are locked on small maps which will offer limited movement and hideouts from multiple enemies.
We already seen that players’ wishes aren’t important to Gaijin.
Reducing the size of the maps won’t stop aircraft from flying, so their mechanical needs will be fulfilled.
There’s a clear reason why AAs and aircraft of the same BR don’t share the same SP cost in GRB.
You can simply flip that around for ARB to make things balanced, as SP cost is yet another way of balancing stuff out.
Yes it is, that’s called equality. If one military branch has their standalone mode, I genuinely don’t see a reason why other branch of the same size wouldn’t be entitled to the same thing.
Saying otherwise is clear anti-ground bias.
Excluding afk time it takes to reach the furball I doubt it’s much more than that. Especially if you don’t have a single guy hiding out and camping his airfield.
Not quite, as they changed how the mode is played and introduced massive unbalances that last to this day. Adding things that were/are basically uncounterable by AAs is a big deal, so rushing it without any consultation with the player base was a massive mistake.
The game itself in it’s current state is a living proof of why assuming such things is a bad idea.
They use same vehicles.
So only barrier are the players, which in the end doesn’t matter seeing how Gaijin is implementing things as they wish.
Spawncamping haven’t stopped GRB or AAB to be multi-spawn.
Helicopters and drones were a pretty alien concept as well when compared to basic fixed wing aircraft that zoomed around the battlefield doing strafe runs.
Top tier is obviously the highest tier of vehicles in the game (Tier 8 currently) which contain vehicles of only two BRs, 12.0 and 11.7 (AAs only). In order to see those, you have to be at least 10.7.
9.0 isn’t top tier, not by a long shot.
When talking about their capabilities it’s safe to presume they’re spaded.
Sure, ARB players could express their thoughts and wishes on the forums as well, after their maps get cut in size. This is exactly what happened to GRB.
No one would deny them that.
Reversing years of changes that no one asked for isn’t really on top of Gaijin’s list, so I’m forced to believe they’ll just keep doing stuff their way, without asking the player base too much.
Thanks for sharing your opinion, but this doesn’t change the fact at all.
As I said, making maps smaller and introducing objectives to keep aircraft busy with something.
ARB is centered around fighters because the mode itself is a cesspool of unbalance. Interaction with ground units is limited because most of the times you’ll put yourself at an disadvantage just to kill some meaningless AI pillbox that give limited score.
Remember, having maps being limited by size is an artificial limit of it’s own, doesn’t matter if it’s 100km or 10km square.
They attract thousands to queue up daily because it’s the only mode where you can play aircrafts first. This does nothing to prove mode’s actual quality and worth.
Nothing should be set in stone, things can change, especially in such a big time period that is a whole decade.
In multi-spawn ARB with CA you could still play aircrafts first and the mode itself is only an expansion to the previous one. No one would be taking aircraft away.
Great, but I’m talking about the current state of the game, which hasn’t changed much for a decade in that regard.
No one would remove AAs by force, as there’re still some very effective TDs posing as AAs which people could use. It’s just the fact that spawning some AAs with limited TD options would be less important, thus could be pretty much ignored if player wants.
No you wouldn’t.
My desired effect would be that vehicles can kill each other reasonably easily, be it from the front or from the sides, which would depend on the vehicles in question as their playstyles differ greatly and have different pros/cons.
Sounds good until you realize aircraft can attack most vehicles from outside of their gun elevation range.
If only there was a vehicle that had a specific role to handle that sort of situation…
Depends how small the maps are going to get.
ARH slingers could be locked in a 100km^2 map with AAs that have range of about 35-40-45kms.
You scale this down for SARH/IR slingers as well.
I’m fine with it as long Ground gets a new standalone mode, leaving current GRB as is.
That’s a problem that’s been haunting GRB for years. I do think multiple spawns could make games more interesting if done correctly, as there would be much more stuff going on at the same time.
Thinking ARB would get screwed by adding multi-spawn is just your opinion, which we don’t share.
From what I’ve seen, I doubt Gaijin agrees with you.
If only you wouldn’t need to die first in order to spawn that vehicle.
A new thread for that would be a good idea, since it isn’t the topic of this thread.
Because making CAP cheaper than CAS would be insane
How would it be insane? CAS targets are a dime a dozen, CAP targets aren’t anywhere as numerous and if the enemy team knows you’re there, they’re unlikely to spawn more.
If CAS is actually as powerful as people say, then CAP (which always has a massive advantage) Is as or even more powerful the CAS.
CAP can’t bomb half a team with impunity.
Yes it should be cheaper… in ground… to protect the ground battle… but muh cas
You can spawn it first though, so you don’t have to die first as you’ve tried making out time and time again…
Stop moving the goalposts and reinforcing your arguments with deception and willful ignorance.
“Want to play tanks, play SPAA instead!” argument, love it.
Use AAs as first spawn just to be able to shoot at aircraft.
Seems like a perfect gameplay loop for Air game modes where the basic goal is to shoot and kill aircraft.
Not to mention that then You can’t do much to the ground units that You are supposed to fight in ground mode (in most cases).
So we are going to be in a loop where only air units have the advantage of being able to fight everything.