Balance improvements in Aircraft Realistic Battles

[Ein79 5,752]

31 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

Good idea & all, but how do you prevent fighters from purposely sky-camping overtop of these spread out targets?

Diving low to the side in such anti-CAS search they are at risk of being weakened by team dispersion and from the lack of top cover.

 

Of course, they can still do it but it's more troublesome for them than killing attackers in the center of the map with teammates up as a cover.

 

BTW - you can not expect total impunity just because you are Me410 or Ad4 killing tanks and pillboxes. 

 

[voky007_CZ 42]

I've got an unexpectable amount of kills today in my B-17 E variant, seems like the damagae output of the defensive turrets has been increased, which I'm personally happy about. Is this true @Stona @Smin1080p?

Edited April 16, 2019 by voky007_CZ

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

3 hours ago, Einherjer1979 said:

Diving low to the side in such anti-CAS search they are at risk of being weakened by team dispersion and from the lack of top cover.

 

Of course, they can still do it but it's more troublesome for them than killing attackers in the center of the map with teammates up as a cover.

 

BTW - you can not expect total impunity just because you are Me410 or Ad4 killing tanks and pillboxes. 

Well I suppose if we ever got the kill feed turned off at least for ground units, that’d be enough I guess.

 

I only hope that the dev team addresses this core gameplay imbalance that has existed since literally day one of the game. Either heavily reforming existing RB Air or releasing markerless RBEC to us would be enough to give the nonfighters some purpose. 

 

Hell if we’re looking specifically to balance out fighter numbers between Allied & Axis Teams, opening EC to RB permanently would be the BETTER option and from the dev team’s point of view the EASIER option since it just needs to copy-paste the lobby creation system from Simulator over to RB. 

3 hours ago, voky007_CZ said:

I've got a unexpectable amount of kills today in my B-17 E variant, seems like the damagae output of the defensive turrets has been increased, which I'm personally happy about. Is this true @Stona @Smin1080p?

Were they all just pilot snipes? Those are more or less random. 

 

Bomber gunners spray significantly more than fighters using the exact same weapons. If any improvement needs to be made regarding bomber defenses, it is this. The same gun should have the same overall accuracy & ballistics. 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

@Smin1080p

 

Hopefully once the event and economic update are done with, we can see real change in Air RB to both fix the top tier problem and improve the health of the game mode overall.

- the T-2 is vastly undertiered, it should be 11.0 with the missile warning removed or 11.3 with the missile warning kept. Removing the warning would be better to do though.

- and the objective structure of Air RB has been broken since literally the game’s beginning back in 2012. No single plane class should end things on its own, it just angers everyone not playing that plane class and makes 1/3 to 1/2 of every tech tree useless dead weight. 

 

Then to improve the situation for attackers & small bombers specifically, we need to return to the 1.55 era damage models on AI Ground & AI Naval Targets, in Air Battles modes only. Nerfs made in 1.57 to deal with Horton 229 spam at the time ruined every other cannon based attacker ingame, and even after 1.73’s belt nerf of the Horton the 1.57 nerf was never undone. Buffing damage models of all AI Ground Targets to balance out mouse aim accuracy in Air RB completely slaughtered the value of cannon attackers in Air Simulator, which is yet another reason we need to see said AI GT damage model buffs reversed. 

 

Then maybe to help improve the bomber situation, all maps can get regenerating bases like we see being tested on Ruhr. 

 

Finally, we really need to see Markerless RB EC opened to the RB Air playerbase as a guaranteed every weekend event or open-matchmaker thing for all BR ranges. This plus undoing the 1.57 AI Ground Unit DM buff would breathe much needed life into attack planes & bombers and give them a place to go besides clog up teams in Air RB.

 

Thanks for all the hard work you’re doing Smin. 

[Smin1080p_WT 60,444]

 

 

 

 

3

2 hours ago, MH4UAstragon said:

Finally, we really need to see Markerless RB EC opened to the RB Air playerbase as a guaranteed every weekend event or open-matchmaker thing for all BR ranges. This plus undoing the 1.57 AI Ground Unit DM buff would breathe much needed life into attack planes & bombers and give them a place to go besides clog up teams in Air RB.

 

Regarding EC RB, we don't have plans to ever make it on such a permanent basis right now. This can of course change, but for now its best kept for events whilst changes are made.

 

The second point of note here is the changes to the GF AI in 1.57. These will not be reverted as the AI damage model now is aligned with the actual player vehicle damage models (to a large degree) thus is more realistic and also consistent. It would not be realistic or immersive to have a complicated DM for player vehicles and then just a weak unrealistic one for AI ground targets.

[SuperDuperOtter 655]

16 minutes ago, Smin1080p said:

Regarding EC RB, we don't have plans to ever make it on such a permanent basis right now. This can of course change, but for now its best kept for events whilst changes are made.

 

You make me sad. 

Spoiler

 

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

2 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

 

Regarding EC RB, we don't have plans to ever make it on such a permanent basis right now. This can of course change, but for now its best kept for events whilst changes are made.

 

The second point of note here is the changes to the GF AI in 1.57. These will not be reverted as the AI damage model now is aligned with the actual player vehicle damage models (to a large degree) thus is more realistic and also consistent. It would not be realistic or immersive to have a complicated DM for player vehicles and then just a weak unrealistic one for AI ground targets.

Well then will anything be done with how the AI Ground Units move across the map then to make them move more like you’d expect player tanks to do?

 

And actually, it DOES make sense to have weak simple DMs for AI Ground Units. AI Ground Units cannot leap onto the forums and whine for nerfs to CAS. These nerfs have badly affected CAS in Air RB and disproportionately harmed cannon-based CAS over rocket or bomb CAS. These nerfs were also made with RB Mouse Aim in mind and thus even more badly affected CAS in Air Simulator.

 

Bot AI Tanks move at top speed constantly and essentially never stop to engage anything and shoot with any accuracy. If they’re to have damage models similar to player tanks, then they need to move and shoot like player tanks too. 

- Move from point A to point B

- Stop

- Shoot several volleys

- Resume moving

 

Then Light Pillboxes have no player equivalent, so is there anything wrong with a 37mm or bigger gun oneshotting them? When large caliber gun vehicles have generally very limited ammo supply and still take at least four direct hits to kill one Light Pillbox, it really disadvantages them compared to .50cals, 30mm MK103, and so forth. 

 

German and Russian CAS (plus what little bit of Italian & Japanese CAS even exists) are very centric on cannons with few if any rocket and bomb spammers, with Russia being the most generous here with IL-2s, IL-10s, Su-6s, Pe-3s, and Pe-2s. Japan has the D4Y1. Some Me-410s have four rockets at best, three Fw-190s & one Bf-109 get one pair of rockets, one Fw-190 gets a useful number of rockets, and a couple things carry useful size bombs 500kg & larger. Only one plane between all four of these has a 37mm with enough ammo to be effective at killing Light Pillboxes, the Bf-110G.

 

Meanwhile in comparison almost every single plane in the US & UK teams, plus some US stuff in FR tree, load at least a couple 1000lbs and oftentimes a lot of rockets. Light Pillboxes are shredded by .50cals very, very easily. 

 

Before the DM buffs of 1.57, both sides were more or less equally effective. Afterwards, Allies were still effective while Axis lost a lot of what they had. Removing the 3D bombsight in Air RB made this worse.

 

It would be much easier (as far as I understand anyway) to undo the DM buffs to AI units than it would be to alter their behavior on all maps to better match what player tanks do. To alter the AI unit behavior in a good way, it would need to be adjusted on a map by map basis and there are roughly a hundred of maps to change AI behavior on. Meanwhile there’s just two or three kinds of Light Tanks, five or six kinds of Medium Tanks, four kinds of Heavy Tanks, and one kind of Light Pillbox. 

 

Half the problems in this game are the result of nerfs or buffs meant for one game mode bleeding over to other modes where they don’t belong. 

- 1.57’s buffed AI damage models suited RB Air & Arcade Air, NOT Simulator Air since Sim does not have Mouse Aim.

- 1.59’s buffed player aircraft DMs & nerfed guns suited Arcade Air, particularly bombers, but did not suit RB Air or Sim Air. Bombers became flying tanks.

- countless nerfs to bombs and the rocket nerf meant to appease the mostly unappeaseable RB GF playerbase bled over to Air modes where there are no player ground units. 

- the nerf to torpedoes to appease the Naval playerbase bled over to Air where now torps are failing to oneshot AI ships.

Edited April 18, 2019 by MH4UAstragon

[SuperDuperOtter 655]

17 hours ago, MH4UAstragon said:

Well then will anything be done with how the AI Ground Units move across the map then to make them move more like you’d expect player tanks to do?

 

And actually, it DOES make sense to have weak simple DMs for AI Ground Units. AI Ground Units cannot leap onto the forums and whine for nerfs to CAS.

 

You'r getting the issue backward.

 

It makes perfect sens to have AI DMs as they currently are : more or less identical as player vehicules DMs.

 

What doesn't makes sens is that the type of AI targets in Air RB should have been changed when the AI DMs changed in order to keep attacker's role usefullness and effectiveness about the same.
Some of these target currently are too though and should be replaced by slightly softer targets. Not necessary all of them, but a good proportion of them.

These sightly softer target should still require specialised weaponery, have some armor, in order to prevent figthers armed for air to air combat from being able to also take AI targets out. We should have to equipe our aircrafts for that task to be able to do it.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

35 minutes ago, SuperDuperOtter said:

 

You'r getting the issue backward.

 

It makes perfect sens to have AI DMs as they currently are : more or less identical as player vehicules DMs.

 

What doesn't makes sens is that the type of AI targets in Air RB should have been changed when the AI DMs changed in order to keep attacker's role usefullness and effectiveness about the same.
Some of these target currently are too though and should be replaced by slightly softer targets. Not necessary all of them, but a good proportion of them.

These sightly softer target should still require specialised weaponery, have some armor, in order to prevent figthers armed for air to air combat from being able to also take AI targets out. We should have to equipe our aircrafts for that task to be able to do it.

Well Light Pillboxes for one are way too tanky against large caliber cannon fire, that’s for damn sure. 

 

Also I tested out the AD-4’s FFAR rocket pods yesterday and they’re unbelieveably stupid good. Light Pillbox? Oneshot. Light Tank? Shred with four cannons. Medium Tank? Oneshot from any angle. Heavy Tank? Oneshot from any angle. I’m guessing that French SNEBs and Russian S-5 rockers are identical aside from a slightly lower launch velocity.

 

Now should these be nerfed? No.

 

Rather the large caliber cannons need a buff, badly, because the way things are now its beyond pointless to take big gun attackers seriously anymore. I finished spading the 50mm Me-410s and while they’re decent, that’s it. Right now there’s no real advantage of taking a gun bigger than the 30mm MK103, since all large caliber guns work the same way currently - shoot side or rear of tanks. And since MK103 has vastly more ammo, it’s a no-brainer. Shouldn’t the bigger caliber guns be able to frontally pen the bot tanks reliably if they have enough armor penetration? Shouldn’t the bigger guns be able to oneshot or twoshot Light Pillboxes? Shouldn’t the biggest size guns be able to harm bot ships?

 

I could see a portion of the targets modified, or instead just make soft targets worth small bits of tickets and add them to maps not having a significant number of them like Normandy, Alamein, Tunisia, Rhine, Poland, and so forth.

 

Also, ever since the game began, Attackers or any Fighter with large ordinance loads have been more or less shafted in terms of SL multiplier. With ground units no longer so easy to kill shouldn’t their SL multipliers be equalized with the other fighters? For instance a 3.7 P-51 earns more than a 4.3-4.7 P-47D. And the 4.3-4.7 P-47D earns more than the 6.0 AD-4.

 

20 hours ago, Smin1080p said:

Regarding EC RB, we don't have plans to ever make it on such a permanent basis right now. This can of course change, but for now its best kept for events whilst changes are made.

Also, @Smin1080p, if EC was deemed “not ready for full release,” then why does Simulator get it 24/7? Seems more than a little bit hypocritical if the playerbase that doesn’t really like EC all that much has it full time while the playerbase that really wants it is starved of it for undisclosed reasons. Last time it was opened it was functionally identical to Sim EC minus the control method for aircraft. The only big thing changed since that last opening was modular airfields. The RB Air playerbase wants to help test and develop the mode too. The most recent Markerless test from last year did not have ridiculous reward intake like some years past EC events did, so players would NOT be grinding too quickly if it was opened to them. If its not open to us we can’t help you guys develop it seriously outside speculation, because less and less Sim guys play EC with how badly busted the economics in that mode are for them at the moment. I know exactly why the economics got busted there - to curb bomber spam - except that the bombers are still spammed out there because they have some degree of usefulness there which they totally lack in RB Air Random Battles.

 

I guess if nothing else a developmental roadmap for the mode and a tentative full release date to RB Air would be appreciated if nothing else. What other things are planned for it besides ironing out bugs with modular airfields? The RB Air playerbase wants to help develop things and give feedback, while enjoying a refreshing change from the quick fighter deathmatches we’ve had for years.

 

I know for a fact that it would be easier to open EC to the RB Air playerbase than it would be to rework the objective structure of RB Air to fit in the nonfighters. Simple copy-paste of Sim’s lobby system. 

[SuperDuperOtter 655]

@MH4UAstragon i was reponding specificaly on your stence about the AI Vehicules DMs 1.somthing patch change.

 

PileBoxes and weapon balance are 2 other subjects, distinct from AI Vehicules DMs.

 

And yes, the  nation to nation discrepency in weapon effectiveness against Ground targets at large is completly off charts.

 

But the AI Vehicule DMs change was right, they just forget to rebalance the type of AI vehicule GTs in Air RB. Completly f*cking-up the groundpounding balance as a consequence.

[mdrpl7 185]

What would be most balanced matchmaker in terms of countries vs countries?

Id much prefer grouping countries than mixing them all together. Temporary or not i hate fighting same planes as mine.

I am sure theres some nations vs nations configuration that would be relatively balanced? 

Never played mig-19s but after that rudder buff isn't he at least semi worthy vs t-2k's?

 

The queue times are horrible with mixed battles. Very few people play top jets Air RB after that fix. I want to play but i cant find any battles :(. 

I propose reverting that fix so somebody actually is interested in this mode

Edited April 19, 2019 by mdrpl7

[Ein79 5,752]

On 19/04/2019 at 21:59, mdrpl7 said:

The queue times are horrible with mixed battles. Very few people play top jets Air RB after that fix. I want to play but i cant find any battles :(. 

I propose reverting that fix so somebody actually is interested in this mode

Yes, I completely stopped playing 8.0-10.0 top tiers even though I was hyped with Mig19S, G91Y, CL13B and so on.

I'm back on props and very early jets as Me262A, He162, Horten. Most time not mixed.

 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

On 21/04/2019 at 22:00, Einherjer1979 said:

Yes, I completely stopped playing 8.0-10.0 top tiers even though I was hyped with Mig19S, G91Y, CL13B and so on.

I'm back on props and very early jets as Me262A, He162, Horten. Most time not mixed.

 

And I've gave up this game atm.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Diabel_Z_Piekla

[voky007_CZ 42]

On 22/04/2019 at 22:13, Diabel_Z_Piekla said:

And I've gave up this game atm.

Haha, same. Started playing tanks in Heroes and Generals. A great game if you want to take a break from the mess WT is atm.

[Ein79 5,752]

 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

9 hours ago, voky007_CZ said:

Haha, same. Started playing tanks in Heroes and Generals. A great game if you want to take a break from the mess WT is atm.

I'm thinking about Post Scriptum

[_Kolonel_Klink_ 390]

How hard is it to uptier the T-2 and revert symmetrical matchmaking back to standard?

 

Either it requires too much effort, or someone doesn't want it done.

 

I cannot understand the logic here - this matchmaking situation is actively discouraging sales of 9.0 premiums from my perspective, because - who wants to fight a mirror image of themselves?

 

This situation is pathetic, as is the lack of a fix.

 

The solution is dead simple - Uptier the T-2 so that it's alone, and revert symmetrical matchmaking. It's a tree vehicle, so there is no concern for loss of sales.

[Gene_Takovic 24]

On 28/03/2019 at 14:04, 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.

 

Please leave feedback!

Then i want a damn refund! I didnt bought the Sea Hawk 100 only to be putted against Axis in Mixed battles!!

[Madwolf 10,222]

You're not getting a refund over mixed battles. There was never a promise made that any vehicle would be kept from mixed battles since the game launched.

[KnightsCross20@psn 3,636]

15 hours ago, Madwolf said:

You're not getting a refund over mixed battles. There was never a promise made that any vehicle would be kept from mixed battles since the game launched.

So much wrong with this statement, and truly shows where GJ is with their customers. 

[Diabel_Z_Piekla 694]

21 hours ago, *KnightsCross20 said:

So much wrong with this statement, and truly shows where GJ is with their customers. 

Rather where they have their customers, and IMO it's pretty dark and warm there 

[Daffan 6,158]

The rate which  Concurrent User  is going, every single battle in this game will be mixed. No matter how much content there is, it falls flat on its face for majority. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by DaffanZ

[Plain_Pasta 24]

I hope gaijob will stop balancing 7.7+ BR's, when 1.89 hits live servers. 

[Trotrodor 2,670]

On 28/03/2019 at 13:35, BlackFlagger said:

This should change, I do not have a problem with unrealistic match ups in either air rb or ground rb, for example I do not care if the japanese /italians fight the germans or if the british fight the americans, for me that is not an issue. My issue is with mixed battles where the teams are mirrored, I do not like for example at 9.0 / 9.3 getting japan vs japan or germany vs germany, we are already fighting other sabers and fighting the exact plane / tank you're playing is a pain, example: f40 vs f40, if you got the same plane on your 6 you're pretty much dead unless he's a really bad pilot where as if you're engaged by an f2 or cl13 at least there's a slight difference between the planes that can be exploited. At lest with unrealistic match up you know you're not fighting your own vehicle. 

           If number of people playing is an issue why not have smaller matches ? For example in tank simulator I get huge maps like volokolamsk in 5vs5 matches, If its works there why not in rb tank or planes ?

 

In conclusion, I don't mind if axis are fighting axis or allies fighting allies as long as the teams have different nations: british vs american is fine but brit, american vs brit, american is not fine and same goes for the axis.

yeah, at least you know that your cl13 is better in every way ! When it become balance it's suddently less fun ... weird isn't it ?

 

I like when axis get mad because it's balance lul

Edited May 19, 2019 by Trotrodor

[Geyser_Soze 412]

So with no real competition to the T2 on the horizon like Jaguar, F4, F5, Mig 21 etc. for 1.89, I guess jet battle will still be a broken mess until 1.91 at least. 

I guess this “temporary” solution became quite permanent, since it will be lasting for months. 

The good news is that props are quite fun, and with the grind on hold i can enjoy the lower tiers more since there is no pressure to maximize RP.