Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

30 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

Its related and as I said, also not the only thing to change. I also said BRs too. 

BRs of course has much to do in balance compartment but repair costs don't. If you put repair costs in low or reasonable range it won't give you anything, but if you make them too high people will stop playing such vehicles/aircrafts. Forcing people to throw away some types of machines is not balance.

In terms of balance you have also mission construction, map construction in terms of ground/naval targets dispacement, map size, types of aircrafts that are in given teams etc. You simply can't balance it simkply only by BR and (ineffectively from the rule) repair costs.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[NO_DRAGON 2,374]

25 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Because the dev server would never give us the kind of figures and data needed to make such important changes. We cant balance the whole game based of the testing of under 500 ish people playing mostly in custom battles. 

 

 

Its related and as I said, also not the only thing to change. I also said BRs too. 

 

Anyway,

thanks for responding and giving an outlook over the companies view of the matter.

 

To all those that now hack and slash at Smin remember the fable of the messenger.

 

So stop shooting him. He is here and answering to the best of his abtilities and and as far as possible (there is still an NDA too).

 

So be happy that he is even spilling a few beans.

 

[SuperDuperOtter 655]

2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

Its impossible to change everything at once, as we need time to make sure the changes are right, deploy smoothly and dont cause issues elsewhere. After this, as we have said, we will then move on to other areas of balancing not changed in this patch such as BR, Repair cost etc. 

 

And that's what we are mad at.

 

There are thing that should have been fixed years ago, but instead of attributing the ressources to fixe these isses, big heads over your grade decided to attribute sources else where. Because ressorces could have been attributing to hire poeple to fixe stuff instead of hiring poeple to make new shiny (and useless because of the issues) stuff.

 

And now, you guys, managing the comunauty, are waist deep in crap trying to deal with the salt generated by big heads attributing ressources to shiny OP top tier jets and helis and boats instead of fixing the damn game.

 

With the unadressed issues now starting to the cause chain reactions nearly out of control.

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by SuperDuperOtter

[Salty_Raven 878]

25 minutes ago, SuperDuperOtter said:

There are thing that should have been fixed years ago, but instead of attributing the ressources to fixe these isses, big heads over your grade decided to attribute sources else where. Because ressorces could have been attributing to hire poeple to fixe stuff instead of hiring poeple to make new shiny (and useless because of the issues) stuff.

Exactly! There's a LOT of issues with the game that should have been fixed years ago, but all Gaijin does is ADD MORE STUFF. I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Gaijin.. It's time to take a step back and make the next update COMPLETELY about fixing the game and not add a single thing to the game.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

Its related and as I said, also not the only thing to change. I also said BRs too. 

Most of the problems in this game mode cannot be fixed by new additions or BR shifts at this point. The spamminess of event season is making the flaws even more painfully obvious. Really all that can be fixed by new additons are:

- worthwhile Japanese & Italian bombers for mid-higher tiers

- Attackers for Japan

- 6.0-6.7 counters to Allied superprop spam for GER, RU, IT, & JP

- and now appropriate counters to the T-2.

 

That’s literally it. 

 

The gameplay fixes meanwhile, in summary, are:

- making it impossible for any single plane class to win on its own (fighter, attacker, or bomber). This means removing automatic bleeds and turning off the gremlin script of AI killing AI to freeze the much hated onesided autowin maps like Saipan and Hokkaido.

- removal of enemy markers to make climb rate and turn rate less important than now.

- a map filter option, if we have the option to turn off Join in Progress, why not also this? Players need a bit more say in what they are willing to play even if it means they wait a little longer for games. Many maps are just really badly designed, including just about all naval maps.

- a BR spread option, if the devs cannot decide on a universal number to make people happy, let players decide from options of 0.3/0.4, 0.7, and 1.0 instead. Just like above, players need a little more say in what they’re willing to play, even if they wait longer for games. Give us the choice and leave it at that, if people complain about queues still the option would be to increase personal BR spread, chosen maps, or both.

- either remove lost control & add G force ripping limits to all planes or remove G force ripping limits from all planes since we have lost control. Wing ripping massively predates lost control from a much earlier stage of the game’s life. We do not need both. If I had to pick I’d give every plane a G force failure limit. A plane’s structural tolerance cannot be improved by buying crew points with GE.

- standardizing repair bills by BR, since its crystal-clear that balancing by repair cost does not work, that just shifts what people spam. 

- the missile warning should not exist.

- release markerless RB EC full time to the playerbase, it has not appreciably changed from patch to patch in a long time, players fill the queues to bursting every time its available, almost everyone loves it, why hasn’t it been permanently implemented for RB? 

 

These are the biggest issues. How the above relates to the T-2 crisis:

- BR spread feeding planes to T-2s that have no business fighting them. Ever.

- Map rotation being nothing short of atrocious, for example Wake Island with supersonics.

- Allied side stuffed with bombers and lawnmowers that have usually little impact on winning games aside from specific terrible maps with fast gremlin script bleed. Meanwhile Axis has next to none.

- The missile warning making underdog planes unable to have the slightest counter to a T-2 at all.

- And finally lack of appropriate competition for the T-2.

26 minutes ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

Exactly! There's a LOT of issues with the game that should have been fixed years ago, but all Gaijin does is ADD MORE STUFF. I've said it before and I'll say it again.. Gaijin.. It's time to take a step back and make the next update COMPLETELY about fixing the game and not add a single thing to the game.

More stuff fixes only a select few things as I just stated. With how filled out most trees are there isn’t much left to fix by adding new things.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

2 hours ago, NO_DRAGON said:

 

Anyway,

thanks for responding and giving an outlook over the companies view of the matter.

 

To all those that now hack and slash at Smin remember the fable of the messenger.

 

So stop shooting him. He is here and answering to the best of his abtilities and and as far as possible (there is still an NDA too).

 

So be happy that he is even spilling a few beans.

 

We understand he’s busy with the upcoming economy change. 

 

The symmetrical matchmaking and now event season spam infesting every tier, combined with age-old problems that mostly don’t relate to new things at all, have just pushed a lot of us to the breaking point.

 

I hope my comments don’t come across as “shooting the messenger,” because I too recognize he’s just a messenger for the RB Air Community.

 

We need broad gameplay changes in the near-ish future. Let the dumpster fire of the current event burn itself out first, the upcoming economy patch, and most likely an upcoming BR change patch come through.

 

(The event is well designed and good in principle, the community on the other hand during event seasons is not because everyone’s looking to exploit something to grind the event faster and it just gives me a headache whether I play aircraft or tanks.)

[Salty_Raven 878]

Here's one way of giving matches better balance, and it is something that should be done to all matches, not just the ones above BR 7.7

 

Implement limit to number of planes of the highest BR in a match, I would say max 3 planes of the top planes in the match, meaning if the match is BR 6.0 - 7.0 then there will be no more than 3 7.0 planes on each team. This WILL make the queue times increase for a time, but only until players learn that they wont meet teams with 90% 7.0 jets in their 6.0 prop plane. Then player numbers on those BR's are going to increase, because players will see it as playable. Right now I don't see it as playable, I'm trying to spade the I 225, but 80% of the times I'm getting matches where the enemy team is mostly made up of 6.7-7.3 jets and I do not stand much chance against them, unless I can catch one at slow speed, which is quite rare.

 

So my suggestion is to change the MM so that it fills the matches something like this..
An example. In match of BR 6.0 to 7.0 with 15 player teams it should be at least 5 planes of 6.0 - 4 of 6.3 - no more than 3 planes of 6.7 and no more than 3 planes of 7.0

And this rule should be implemented to the MM in general to the entire BR range of the game, because it gives the matches balance and it make it viable to play for those that get up tiered.

[Salty_Raven 878]

38 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

- a BR spread option, if the devs cannot decide on a universal number to make people happy, let players decide from options of 0.3/0.4, 0.7, and 1.0 instead. Just like above, players need a little more say in what they’re willing to play, even if they wait longer for games. Give us the choice and leave it at that, if people complain about queues still the option would be to increase personal BR spread, chosen maps, or both.

This.. Is actually a good idea, @MH4UAstragon Of all your ideas this is the only one I give you thumbs up for. Move it to suggestions and fight to get it implemented, because that certainly would make things better. I don't care if I have to wait 5 min for a match as long as I don't have to face crap that I have no chance to beat. Gaijin... We do not need to get a match within 30 seconds, we need to get matches that are balanced and playable. I do not get why that is so hard for you to understand!

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

31 minutes ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

Implement limit to number of planes of the highest BR in a match, I would say max 3 planes of the top planes in the match, meaning if the match is BR 6.0 - 7.0 then there will be no more than 3 7.0 planes on each team. This WILL make the queue times increase for a time, but only until players learn that they wont meet teams with 90% 7.0 jets in their 6.0 prop plane. Then player numbers on those BR's are going to increase, because players will see it as playable. Right now I don't see it as playable, I'm trying to spade the I 225, but 80% of the times I'm getting matches where the enemy team is mostly made up of 6.7-7.3 jets and I do not stand much chance against them, unless I can catch one at slow speed, which is quite rare.

We have this in Ground Forces and it DOES. NOT. WORK. In fact it creates MORE uptiers, not less. 

 

Players need the option to set their own BR spread to 0.3/0.4, 0.7, or 1.0. Add some automatic popup when changing things saying “lowering BR spread will increase your queue times. Proceed? (yes/no)”

 

Likewise a similar option for maps, because some are straight up horrible and massively favor one side over the other.

[Spindash64 1,244]

another reason it won't work: Axis has more 7.0 jets than they do 6.3/6.0 planes. In fact, Germany did not have a single aircraft at the BR of 6.3 until the most recent BR change dropped the Salamander to 6.3

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

30 minutes ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

This.. Is actually a good idea, @MH4UAstragon Of all your ideas this is the only one I give you thumbs up for. Move it to suggestions and fight to get it implemented, because that certainly would make things better. I don't care if I have to wait 5 min for a match as long as I don't have to face crap that I have no chance to beat. Gaijin... We do not need to get a match within 30 seconds, we need to get matches that are balanced and playable. I do not get why that is so hard for you to understand!

We still all would benefit from the other points.

- what benefit is there in having a third to half of every tech tree be useless outside rare extraneous circumstances?

- what benefit is there to enemy markers causing herd mentality panic diving and thus excessive focus on climb rate?

- what benefit is there to having so many handholds regarding spotting that places so much emphasis on maneuverability? The markers we have would make perfect sense for BRs 1.0-3.0 but beyond that they should not exist as the formula changes dramatically.

- what benefit is there to forcing people to play on maps they cannot stand, especially if some are laughably slanted towards one side or the other?

- what benefit is there to holding back a mode the community loves when its rarely available for undisclosed or canned reasons like “its not ready yet/its not planned for the future”

 

The other ideas are still good. Many of these intertwined to amplify the T-2 mess we see now.

[Salty_Raven 878]

I gave your post a "Sad" face because.. You really do not get it @MH4UAstragon No one, but you want tags removed simply because it'll make RB like Sim mode and it will end up with hardly anyone wanting to play it because spot the dot. WT's graphic engine isn't good enough for it. If people did like it, then much more people would be playing SB, everyone I've talked with about SB says about the same.. "Spot-the-dot" make my eyes hurt, or is tiresome, or is not for me.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Skeptical_Bunny

[Ein79 5,749]

16 hours ago, MH4UAstragon said:

We still all would benefit from the other points.

[...]

- what benefit is there to enemy markers causing herd mentality panic diving and thus excessive focus on climb rate?

- what benefit is there to having so many handholds regarding spotting that places so much emphasis on maneuverability? The markers we have would make perfect sense for BRs 1.0-3.0 but beyond that they should not exist as the formula changes dramatically.

 

We have already responded to this many times in other threads:

1. First of all, most of us will not enjoy an AirRB match, the bulk of which will consist in a long, boring, half-blind search for an opponent. 

This may work well (decently fast) on the claustrophobically small (from the plane's point of view) TankRB maps, but imagine AirRB Norway, Spain or Boulogne-sur-Mer with "spot-the-dot" search.

2. Secondly, no less important for me: "spot-the-dot" is really harmful way of gameplay. Sustained staring at a single pixel in a detailed, rich-3D-graphic of dynamic video game is a great way to torment your eyesight. I value my eyes more than the pseudo-realism of the game.

3. The graphics quality in WarThunder is high, but still far from the real life resolution and human eye abilities. In the game, objects are recognizable as detailed forms from smaller distances than in real life. In the case of a small fighter in the game you will not guess whether it is Jak23 or Mig9L until you get closer to 300 m. And that's a significant difference.

4. And the last but not least: 
 

Markers are equivalent (yes, in simplified and easier to use form than in IRL) of:

 

- information shared between pilots via radio
- information provided to pilots via radio by ground control (both radar and optical)
- information provided to pilots via radio by ground and naval forces in the battle area

(no, chat / typing on the keyboard doesn't replace it, it is a completely inadequate solution to the dynamics of the air combat, it is worse than writing sms while driving a car)

Well played AirRB, similar to WWII aerial combat (not to mention jets of ColdWar era), should be like a chess game, where you make the right decisions on the chessboard knowing the possible moves of the pawns.

 

This should NOT be just the sum of duels and kills by surprise during random encounters...as it was during "markerless" EC event or IRL during WWI.
 

...

Spotting system needs rework, but certainly not a reduction to the level of "marekerless EC" event.


Regarding "markers causing herd mentality panic diving" - If someone is so mentally unstable that he can not cope with stress despite of his experience on TierIII and above...then maybe he should uninstall WarThunder and go back to more relaxing, easy going games. 


 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Einherjer1979

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

Basically what you’re saying is that dot size and distance at which an actual shape renders at all graphic levels needs to increase. That’s totally fine. 

 

Also, I doubt all that many people would play Norway, Spain, or Bologne if we had a map filter. 

 

Without surprise engagement as the main factor, climb and turn will always be superior in this game mode and anything not absolute best in one or both is food until jet BRs. That is the leading cause of the Axis overflow that exists at all BRs, because Axis gets the best climb rates bar none until the tier of Griffon Spitfires and gets two nations loaded with the best turners ingame.

- Bf-109s are rather fast, especially the K-4, and climb like rocketships

- C.205s & G.55s/56s climb like rocketships and turn very well

- Zeroes just turn really well

- J2Ms climb like rocketships and turn rather well

- A7Ms climb decently, turn on a dime, and dive like P-47s

- Ki-84s do practically everything

- Fw-190s then bounce things forced down by better climbers

 

- Then in jet tiers anything not the absolute fastest is food, and due to the markers its not possible to escape the notice of whoever’s the fastest to accomplish anything. Then meanwhile when the fastest guys slow down to fight someone, markers make it incredibly hard to catch them off guard and kill them.

 

They inflate the differences between planes well beyond what they normally would be. Who spots who first should be paramount in engagements, only if the first pass misses or both people spot each other at roughly the same time do you get a proper aerial duel.

 

The true cause of the T-2 crisis will not change unless you dispense with the markers. And when combined with the ideas to reform objective structure to require efforts of both fighters & nonfighters to efficiently win, and enlarging and better scaling of dots to render at more reasonable ranges, there would not be too many problems like you’re talking about. Give people the freedom to truly think ways out of their problems, not have most of said options denied by automatic spotting handholds.

 

Then, people like you and I may not panic-dive upon seeing someone above, but sadly at least some portion of the average players on each team will panic dive if they see someone above them. Then the ones who don’t initially panic dive look around and find themselves outnumbered, and they dive too. Match is over. Then when faced with a nigh-impossible chance to win, people resort to lawnmowing to just get something at all.

 

Do you have any other ideas than what I propose?

Edited April 12, 2019 by MH4UAstragon

[Salty_Raven 878]

I feel sad for you @MH4UAstragon

You have argued those points for how many years now....? And people have told you how they feel about them and hardly anyone have supported you on your points and you still don't get that hardly anyone want it like that in RB. 

I'm just being honest with you here, Astragon. You argue the same points over and over again and you keep railroading thread after thread that has nothing to do with your points. I'm AMAZED that the mods haven't banned you from the forum. And YES I feel sad for you that you DO NOT GET IT after so many years of arguing the same points and nothing have come of it other than a little test. If you ask me.. That test should never have happened because all it did was give you fuel for arguing your points even more.

 

PS

Mods and forum members.. I am sorry if this come across as me attacking Astragon, but seriously.. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that want to make him unable to use a keyboard.

 

Can we please get back to the topic at hand now, Astrago?! (and please make viable points that has to do with the topic at hand)

Edited April 12, 2019 by Skeptical_Bunny

[Salty_Raven 878]

So Let's get back on topic, hm?

It being...

On 28/03/2019 at 13:04, Stona said:

In order to improve balance in aircraft Realistic Battles  for vehicles of BR 7.7 and higher, the priority of the creating symmetrical battles "allies vs allies" and "axis vs axis" has been temporarily increased.

[Ein79 5,749]

3 hours ago, MH4UAstragon said:

Do you have any other ideas than what I propose?

 

All we need is a more sophisticated spotting system:

 

1. Lets add the factor of ground and naval observational points: both radar and vizual. They would differ in the range and quality of the detection depending on whether it is a radar station, observation tower, balloon, ship or ground vehicle. Destroying an observation point would create blind spots on the map or areas of limited detection (less information).

 

2. Lets add the factor of camouflage and background. This is realistic and confirmed by the pilots' accounts that the properly painted aircraft on the background of the ground is really difficult to spot and track. Similarly at high altitude - bright colors, shades of gray and blue make detection difficult. The degree of matching the camouflage (or lack thereof) to the background colors should matter. 

 

3. Spots should be shared only if your teammate was actually looking at the target and not just pass him without notting him.

 

[Salty_Raven 878]

Okay, fine since we're not doing that then..

I do agree that the spotting system need a serious overhaul and change, but I want the markers to stay, I'm not playing SB because I do not want to ruin my eyes.

If we were to have the spotting more like you say @Einherjer1979 then the map need to change too. instead of how it is now with X number and X letter. the map should be split up into 9 sectors numbered 1-9 that each have 9 quadrants A-I and those reports from mission control that pilots get should come as "Enemy spotted in sector 5 F at approximate 4000m" meaning center of the map, eastern part of the center sector at approximately 4000m. And these reports should come from any allied source, pillboxes(not light ones), recon planes, ships and observation posts every 5 minutes during the match. As long as the enemy is within 4 km of any of the mentioned allied sources.

But I said I still want markers, but at a distance of 0-8 km, as in where all planes are shown just with a gray marker above the plane on distances of 4-8 km. Any plane within 4 km is marked either as friend or foe, no player name (only on allies), no exact distance (not until 2 km at least), no plane type (not until 3 km)

The 4 corner clams around the plane need to go, there should only be a small triangle, or diamond shaped marker over the spotted plane. And if an ally call out for someone to attack an enemy and that enemy is outside of your friend-foe identity range, then you only get sector and quadrant info with an approximate altitude.

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Skeptical_Bunny

[Salty_Raven 878]

As for the topic at hand I'd suggest you just remove the Mitsubishi T 2 till you are ready to introduce planes that can counter it. And take a closer look at the game and try to find ways to give it balance.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

38 minutes ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

Okay, fine since we're not doing that then..

I do agree that the spotting system need a serious overhaul and change, but I want the markers to stay, I'm not playing SB because I do not want to ruin my eyes.

If we were to have the spotting more like you say @Einherjer1979 then the map need to change too. instead of how it is now with X number and X letter. the map should be split up into 9 sectors numbered 1-9 that each have 9 quadrants A-I and those reports from mission control that pilots get should come as "Enemy spotted in sector 5 F at approximate 4000m" meaning center of the map, eastern part of the center sector at approximately 4000m. And these reports should come from any allied source, pillboxes(not light ones), recon planes, ships and observation posts every 5 minutes during the match. As long as the enemy is within 4 km of any of the mentioned allied sources.

But I said I still want markers, but at a distance of 0-8 km, as in where all planes are shown just with a gray marker above the plane on distances of 4-8 km. Any plane within 4 km is marked either as friend or foe, no player name (only on allies), no exact distance (not until 2 km at least), no plane type (not until 3 km)

The 4 corner clams around the plane need to go, there should only be a small triangle, or diamond shaped marker over the spotted plane. And if an ally call out for someone to attack an enemy and that enemy is outside of your friend-foe identity range, then you only get sector and quadrant info with an approximate altitude.

If the dot sizes and rendering gets increased significantly, wouldn’t markers become no longer needed? As far as I understand they’re basically being used as an excuse to not fix the dot spotting confusions that do happen such as planes going completely invisible.

 

As long as there is an RB Markerless mode of some kind, be it modifying the existing random battles or finally releasing Markerless RBEC full time to our playerbase, that will soak up the disproportionate spam of non-fighter aircraft seen on Allied Teams.

 

Then uptiering the T-2 to 11.3 so it only fights itself fixes the remainder of the mess.

Just now, Skeptical_Bunny said:

As for the topic at hand I'd suggest you just remove the Mitsubishi T 2 till you are ready to introduce planes that can counter it. And take a closer look at the game and try to find ways to give it balance.

Uptier it to 11.3 so with symmetrical matchmaking it only fights itself, then switch off symmetrical matchmaking below 10.3 BR.

 

That would compartmentalize the problem without removing it and having to refund stuff to countless people.

[Madwolf 10,222]

Yes. My overall point was that the imbalance between whose advantaged plays into the problems we see now.

 

If you adjust BRs based on those results you're always going to have undertiered and overtiered planes.

 

So if you want to fix BRs the imbalance between populations you have to make sure everyone gets a somewhat equal environment to learn in over the course of dozens of games.

[Salty_Raven 878]

40 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

If the dot sizes and rendering gets increased significantly, wouldn’t markers become no longer needed? As far as I understand they’re basically being used as an excuse to not fix the dot spotting confusions that do happen such as planes going completely invisible.

I don't think that is the case at all. I think the graphic engine of the game is unable to do it. And even if it were and it was done to the game and the markers were removed I would quit playing. I'm not interested in playing a game where I have to spot the F....ing DOT all the F....ing time, if I wanted to do that, then I would be playing SB and IF you REALLY want no markers, then go play SB instead and be happy you don't have markers.

 

Maybe you should try to get mouse aim in on SB instead, then I'm pretty sure there will be more players wanting to try SB as there are players that want to play SB, but do not want to use a JS and hate the mouse joy, because, yes, mouse joy suck.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

1 hour ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

I don't think that is the case at all. I think the graphic engine of the game is unable to do it. And even if it were and it was done to the game and the markers were removed I would quit playing. I'm not interested in playing a game where I have to spot the F....ing DOT all the F....ing time, if I wanted to do that, then I would be playing SB and IF you REALLY want no markers, then go play SB instead and be happy you don't have markers.

 

Maybe you should try to get mouse aim in on SB instead, then I'm pretty sure there will be more players wanting to try SB as there are players that want to play SB, but do not want to use a JS and hate the mouse joy, because, yes, mouse joy suck.

And yet nonfighter aircraft that are in high tiers only clogging up allied teams simply will not be useable unless markers are removed with how their weapons work currently vs the existing targets.

 

So, would having Markerless RB EC running full time and then leaving existing Air RB to rot with markers be enough for you? Because if you want to keep markers you may as well remove all bombers, attackers, bomber hunter heavy fighters, ground targets, bomb targets, airfield health pools, and bot ships to convert it solely into a fighter team deathmatch. The mode should stop pretending its more than just “a fighter deathmatch with semi-tasty crumbs thrown in to bait nonfighters into fighter jaws,” because it’s not.

 

The mode has to make a decision already. Will it adapt to properly fit in what has failed to fit into it well for years now, or will it see a mode the playerbase already wants and likes be added to handle the misfit aircraft that simply don’t work in PvP and be stripped down to just a fighter deathmatch?

 

Going halfsies with everybody has not worked for over six years now - all we get are constant back and forth arguments between fighter & nonfighter mains’ camps. Fighter players complain about autowin AI, airfield humping, bomber spaceclimbing, purposeful gunshipping, bomber airspawns allowing certain planes to rush them while they (afk) climb, and in some patches damage models of bombers and attackers being stupidly strong. Bombers complain about lacking objective structure, lack of purpose, nerfed weaponry when attempting to kill ground targets, and the inability to cross a map border to leave instead of landing ever so slowly and asking to get butchered for stupid repair bills. Attackers complain about badly designed maps with all ground units placed under where the main furball develops, badly nerfed weapons, lacking rewards, and lack of usefulness in winning most games. Each camp only ever seems to complain about the strengths of the other or when another does well or when another tries to adapt to being useless in the case of gunshipping and bomber spaceclimbing. If no compromise can be found between them that actually WORKS WELL unlike now, we might as well relegate the non-pvp planes to Markerless RB EC only.

 

In much of midtiers and up these misfits are far more common on the Allied side than the Axis side, and this continues up to high tier to help cause the mess that brought about “emergency symmetrical matchmaking” as Smin more or less described it.

 

This issue cannot wait around much longer. It needs a real solution in the next major patch, because its almost certain another tier of supersonics and better missiles await which will render the T-2 obselete is on the way. And as we get more high tier supersonics we’re bound to get more attackers and bombers whether the mode actually works with them or not. Guess what, Germany never made large bombers of its own during the Cold War, because those from US/UK and RU were stationed in the respective halves of it at the time. Italy likewise was a NATO member and didn’t need to pursue its own large strategic bomber development. Nor did Japan which is a NATO ally and not a full member. America had the B-52 and B-1 Lancer, with potential for even oddball flying wings like the XB-35, B-36, YB-49 serving as in-between planes. Britain had the well-known Vulcan bombers, among others. Russia had the Tu-95 and some of its own supersonic designs. With an imbalance in what was used like that, this problem will only re-emerge as only one side has all these non-meta aircraft.

[Salty_Raven 878]

Removing markers isn't the solution to the problem, Gaijin fear losing money on it because they know that doing such a drastic change to the game will make them lose players and paying customers. So I really doubt that will ever happen. Those of us that have been playing long enough saw which way it went with Sim Battle Mode. People tried it, but most quit it because of the "spot the dot" problem with it.

 

Fixing weapon damage, ground targets, fixing the way the current spotting system works without removing markers.

 

I miss the times when attackers and bombers could win the game, back when the weapon damage actually was realistic, when it wasn't unusual for matches to last 30-40 minutes and ground attackers for repair and rearm to get out there and finish the job. And that was back when we had 10km spotting with markers. So no.. Removing the markers isn't the solution, changing the weapon damage is.

Take the IL2, it was one of the most heavily armored ground attackers during WW2 and could take one hell of a beating, the same goes for the P 47, but with the weapon damage that you argued so hard to get back when the .50's were over preforming, planes do not stand a chance at doing anything at all, because they get shot down with a tiny burst. This is the result of what you wanted, bombers and attackers can't survive long enough to do a damn ****.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Skeptical_Bunny

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

8 hours ago, Skeptical_Bunny said:

Removing markers isn't the solution to the problem, Gaijin fear losing money on it because they know that doing such a drastic change to the game will make them lose players and paying customers. So I really doubt that will ever happen. Those of us that have been playing long enough saw which way it went with Sim Battle Mode. People tried it, but most quit it because of the "spot the dot" problem with it.

 

Fixing weapon damage, ground targets, fixing the way the current spotting system works without removing markers.

 

I miss the times when attackers and bombers could win the game, back when the weapon damage actually was realistic, when it wasn't unusual for matches to last 30-40 minutes and ground attackers for repair and rearm to get out there and finish the job. And that was back when we had 10km spotting with markers. So no.. Removing the markers isn't the solution, changing the weapon damage is.

Take the IL2, it was one of the most heavily armored ground attackers during WW2 and could take one hell of a beating, the same goes for the P 47, but with the weapon damage that you argued so hard to get back when the .50's were over preforming, planes do not stand a chance at doing anything at all, because they get shot down with a tiny burst. This is the result of what you wanted, bombers and attackers can't survive long enough to do a damn ****.

And I was a lot less well informed at the time as to what would happen. I still don’t miss 6-8 nerf pellet guns on my US planes.

 

Damage models of attackers and bombers are NOT the issue. Lacking objective structure is. If my plane is hard to kill by the enemy but cannot meaningfully contribute to winning the game its still a wasted team slot putting my team at a disadvantage.

 

Shall the mode change to accomodate the nonfighters, by altering objective structure so no single class can win all on its own, thereby forcing cooperation between fighters and a class of nonfighters? This would mean either severely nerfing or removing enemy markers as part of this. If marker range just got massively nerfed, it would need to be such that it dethrones the insane focus on climb rate, which is more of a shared spotting issue.

 

Or shall we see RB Air diverge into objective-centric Markerless RB EC and have the current mode be turned fully into just a fighter deathmatch where nonfighters cannot even queue into? This is the easier of the two options from a dev team standpoint, because RB EC has existed in the files for years now and can be switched on at a moment’s notice. It’s functionally identical to Simulator EC in every respect except for the control method of each mode.

 

The “Allied” side is only set to get even more attackers and strategic bombers as we go higher in tier towards modern aircraft, meanwhile the “Axis” side had none or next to none because they lost WW2 and were brought under the control of various Allied powers. So long as we keep this existing team matchup in higher tiers we will only continue to see one side stuffed with mostly useless planes while the other side has nothing else BUT meta fighters. 

 

So shall the mode adapt to the current misfits, or have the misfits be relegated to a mode better for them while the existing one shows its true colors and stops pretending to be more than TDM?