Jump to content

Best answer

A general reminder for all thread participants....

Insulting, inflammatory, off-topic and otherwise rule breaking content which does not contribute to the discussion will not be tolerated here.

Such comments can (and likely will) be met with warnings and possible posting time out if it persists. We get it's a hot topic. However, with that comes the responsibility of remaining respectful and constructive, regardless of your view on the matter.

>>> Take personal disputes of any type to private message, the forum is NOT the place for it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, this has been brought up several times already, but I'll say it again:

 

I think, the best way to promote such a mode would be to get some of the better known content creators to host events and gather support. 

 

A forum topic that keeps moving in circles with a few users supporting the mode will likely get nowhere. 

 

If those who don't actively support the cause or point out problems just stopped posting, this topic would probably quickly disappear in the mysterious space that is "page 2+".

Edited by PointyPuffin
Typo corrected
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PointyPuffin said:

I think, this has been brought up several times already, but I'll say it again:

 

I think, the best way to promote such a mode would be to get some of the better k own content creators to host events and gather support. 

 

A forum topic that keeps moving in circles with a few users supporting the mode will likely get nowhere. 

 

If those who don't actively support the cause or point out problems just stopped posting, this topic would probably quickly disappear in the mysterious space that is "page 2+".

I agree. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2021 at 17:10, milki30 said:

stupid takes like yours and warriors need a countervoice.

 

You may dislike what I have to say but advocacy for action and alternatives is not stupid--nor was my correct forecasting of (now current) things years ago.

 

20 hours ago, milki30 said:

So again, I'm not doing anything, because nothing needs to be done.

 

There is some irony to this: that has basically been the party line and strategy for three years now...and TO's not here nor nearby.

 
17 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Makes no sense from our point of wiev" = "We don't understand why players want it"

 

TO is a duplication of RB GFs (by its advocates' own insistent description); thus, the operative question behind making TO is "why should Gaijin (largely) duplicate RB GFs?"

 

Nothing about Gaijin's quip in the Q&A there indicates Gaijin lacks an understanding of why players desire TO. Instead, the comment appears to say that Gaijin doesn't feel it makes sense to pursue TO from their (Gaijin's) point of view.

 

Selling Gaijin on this idea and convincing them that their point of view is incorrect and that TO ought to be pursued is what TO advocates should concern themselves with if they want to see TO realized. Gaijin still hasn't been sold on the idea, so if you want TO you need to convince Gaijin to pursue it.

 
17 hours ago, PointyPuffin said:

A forum topic that keeps moving in circles with a few users supporting the mode will likely get nowhere. 

 

With three years and over 400 pages to show for it, this thread is a good practical demonstration that you are correct here. This thread's been a complete failure for pursuing TO.

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

TO is a duplication of RB GFs (by its advocates' own insistent description); thus, the operative question behind making TO is "why should Gaijin (largely) duplicate RB GFs?"

 

Nothing about Gaijin's quip in the Q&A there indicates Gaijin lacks an understanding of why players desire TO. Instead, the comment appears to say that Gaijin doesn't feel it makes sense to pursue TO from their (Gaijin's) point of view.

 

Selling Gaijin on this idea and convincing them that their point of view is incorrect and that TO ought to be pursued is what TO advocates should concern themselves with if they want to see TO realized. Gaijin still hasn't been sold on the idea, so if you want TO you need to convince Gaijin to pursue it.

"Gaijin doesn't feel it makes sense to pursue TO from their (Gaijin's) point of view" = "Gaijin don't understand why players want it"

Like really I don't get how even Your own words don't equal what I have said eariler. And again it is a matter of interpretation :facepalm:

 

Edited by ULQ_LOVER
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Gaijin doesn't feel it makes sense to pursue TO from their (Gaijin's) point of view" = "Gaijin don't understand why players want it"

Like really I don't get how even Your own words don't equal what I have said eariler. And again it is a matter of interpretation :facepalm:

 

That comment doesn't appear to make any mention of what players want nor Gaijin's perception of that--it only mention Gaijin's stance on the topic.

 

What the players think or want was not really brought up there.

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

That comment doesn't appear to make any mention of what players want nor Gaijin's perception of that--it only mention Gaijin's stance on the topic.

 

What the players think or want was not really brought up there.

I don't even know what to say :facepalm:

 

"Makes no sense from our point of wiev" = "We don't understand why players want it"

Who else than players would want it and their point of "manes no sense from our point of wiev" shows that they don't understand why players want it. Nothing hard to undestand here.

Edited by ULQ_LOVER
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, warrior412 said:

There is some irony to this: that has basically been the party line and strategy for three years now...and TO's not here nor nearby.

 

This carries both the assumptions that a lack of overt effort by gaijin means nothing is happening and that any effort on our part would lead to results correlating directly to our efforts.

 

Both of which are demonstrably false.

  • Like 4
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the RB all vehicles meet each other. "Realistic" tank battles also have the word Realistic in them and in reality tanks were also bombed away by airplanes. CAS was also corhanden during the war.

Edited by FastGT007
My phone bugs a bit
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FastGT007 said:

In the RB all vehicles meet each other. "Realistic" tank battles also have the word Realistic in them and in reality tanks were also bombed away by airplanes. CAS was also corhanden during the war.

Actually, REALISM is an argument AGAINST planes...

 

In WW2 planes simply would not ATTACK tanks while they were engaged by other tanks. They would attack tanks in the rear, never during the battle. You MIGHT find a couple odd cases...but they were rare to non-existant.

AND...even in modern days this is arguably very rare.

 

Simple reason...it is very hard for a fast moving plane to distinguish friendly and enemy tanks...so they wont attack if they are too close to each other...

Exceptions are emergency situations or overzealous pilots...

(Helicopters may be an exception as they have time to distinguish targets and move slower...and are actually trained to do so...still...the theory is that they engage BEFORE the tank battle...)

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

(Helicopters may be an exception as they have time to distinguish targets and move slower...and are actually trained to do so...still...the theory is that they engage BEFORE the tank battle...)

Not to mention that helicopters are sustainable even to smallarms fire so they go into action only when there is no imminent AAA, SPAA or even infantry (manpad) threat. Thats lesson learned from DCS where most of my Ka-50 deaths while doing CAS were to manpad (either Igla or Stinger) as they can hide anywhere.

Edited by KH_Alan
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [email protected] said:

Actually, REALISM is an argument AGAINST planes...

So then I don't quite understand why you play tanks against planes (and helis).

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

 

 

In WW2 planes simply would not ATTACK tanks while they were engaged by other tanks. They would attack tanks in the rear, never during the battle. You MIGHT find a couple odd cases...but they were rare to non-existant.

AND...even in modern days this is arguably very rare.

 

Simple reason...it is very hard for a fast moving plane to distinguish friendly and enemy tanks...so they wont attack if they are too close to each other...

Exceptions are emergency situations or overzealous pilots...

 

If, as you say, a fast flying plane doesn't have time to spot a tank, you could remove the teammate indicator so you have to spot the vehicles first. That way you could also solve the CAS problem.

 

Then when a team kill happens, you have to pay Silver Lions for killing the wrong vehicle.

 

2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

(Helicopters may be an exception as they have time to distinguish targets and move slower...and are actually trained to do so...still...the theory is that they engage BEFORE the tank battle...)

We already have helicopters that spawn at the beginning. Simply with unguided rockets

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FastGT007 said:

So then I don't quite understand why you play tanks against planes (and helis).

Err...to have fun. I was just answering to your REALISM comment. I actually LIKE Combined Arms. One big selling point when i started were the ability to use planes over the same battlefield where i was on a tank before...

I just am aware it is NOT realistic...more like "Hollywood" fun...

4 minutes ago, FastGT007 said:

If, as you say, a fast flying plane doesn't have time to spot a tank, you could remove the teammate indicator so you have to spot the vehicles first.

It works like this in SIMULATOR mode. In Arcade and Realistic we get "assists" that are not available in real life. I actually am fine with indicators in Realistic...but think they provide too much info on enemy in arcade. BUT this is a personal opinion...others think otherwise, no way to please everybody...and we all have simulator mode if we want...

 

I WAS NOT commenting on the game...or asking for the game to be 100% realistic...IT IS A GAME, and we have pages above on how things could be better...and lots of people disagree with each other.

What i was commenting is that CONTRARY TO HOLLYWOOD MOVIES, in real life tanks and planes DID NOT fight together in WW2 and most subsequent conflicts...and RARELY do so EVEN TODAY.

Usual scenario...AIRPOWER softens up the target...and AFTERWARDS the ground forces move in.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

I actually am fine with indicators in Realistic...but think they provide too much info on enemy in arcade. BUT this is a personal opinion...others think otherwise, no way to please everybody

Personally, I have nothing against it, like you. But I would find it more exciting without markers on the plane. Then you really have to look at what you are shooting at and not just at a moving point near an enemy. 

 

16 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

WAS NOT commenting on the game...or asking for the game to be 100% realistic...IT IS A GAME, and we have pages above on how things could be better...and lots of people disagree with each other.

What i was commenting is that CONTRARY TO HOLLYWOOD MOVIES, in real life tanks and planes DID NOT fight together in WW2 and most subsequent conflicts...and RARELY do so EVEN TODAY.

Usual scenario...AIRPOWER softens up the target...and AFTERWARDS the ground forces move in.

100% realistic is also not possible, I did not mean it that way.

 

Otherwise it would no longer be a game. Somewhere you have to change things that were not so in reality.

 

 

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

Usual scenario...AIRPOWER softens up the target...and AFTERWARDS the ground forces move in.

Air can be heavily present if enemy anti aircraft capabilities are taken out or nonexistant to begin with. Early WW2 Germany used stukas as a replacement for artillery in blitzkrieg and (Light) CAS is actually doing a comeback because of the asymmetrical nature of modern conflicts.

The biggest conflict with realism with the CAS in War Thunder is because of the accuracy that can be acieved. It is not so much because of the modelled behavior of the vehicles, but because of the behavior of players, who are less risk averse than actual pilots. IRL the target is somekind of enemy position, not a specific vehicle, so it is comparable to a concentrated artillery strike, and the destruction of specific single targets are ensured by using a lot of ordnance.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2021 at 19:32, warrior412 said:


Again, as quantity goes, aircraft are relatively sparse in RB GFs. Aircraft are have poor cost-effectiveness and that combined with their high costs limits their presence.


The same was true with relation to the alleged “helicopter spam”—aircraft (prey) usage had been discouraged by imbalanced SPAAs (predators) and eventually that discouraged the usage of SPAAs. When helicopters arrived in quantity, SPAAs were used sparsely and so people confused helicopters as being far more powerful than they actually were. In reality, it was all just a matter of the WT good chain.

 


While I have tried to help TO along, TO advocates in general have adamantly refused to advance their cause and have remained weary of taking helpful advice from myself and others (despite its vindication).

 

Beyond that, it doesn’t seem too important—by all appearances, interest in TO has collapsed. There is nothing myself nor you can do to resuscitate TO when even its base looks to have abandoned it.

 

For the few that remain, the event option being considered is probably the best you can hope for—back that and settle for that, rather than wasting time with a hopeless effort for an independent mode.


Shame on me for ignoring this thread all february break.

IDK what BR's you're playing at, but at the middle tiers from like 3.7-6.7 aircraft are not sparse AT ALL. It probably has something to do with how insanely bad most AA's are at these ranges. The Wirble and M24 Italian whatever are the only legitimately good ones. The Chinese 4.3 one could be really good if it weren't straddled with its insane 20 second reload. The rest are miserable trash. Japan's best SPAA is the 3.3 So-Ki, which it relies on until 8.0 [the M24 is another stupid Bofors vehicle]. Britians best SPAA until 7.7 is the 3.7 Crusaider AA mkII. France straight up doesn't get any good SPAA's until top tier.

Hell, even as good as the WIrble and Contraereo are, they still aren't even good counters to allied CAS at their BR ranges.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PointyPuffin said:

 

And I am pretty sure that this will change nothing about the "CAS is OP" complaints being nearly exclusively about the G.91.

All ATGM Cas is OP but can you blame people when GER 9.0 and 9.3 is so blatantly overpowered that they can easily acquire sp for g.91 in .2 seconds? And that g.91 only needs like 80k rp vs 380k (+ 200k in mods) 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be fun make a poll on the launcher with the question about TO or Combined.     

So Gaijin can't stick their head in the sand and ignore what playerbase wants.   

If people favor more towards the Combined or TO it will show in the poll.

 

Seeing how some active posters here are narcissistic in the first place and everything goes   evolves around them and not the subject of this topic

 

There is something wrong with the fonts and sorry about that

Edited by cosworth1977
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like @cosworth1977 said, Gaijin should just (occasionally) put opinion surveys in the game to settle some of the more controversial issues, like this one. The survey is easy, but the analysis is a little more nuanced, e.g. people that only play airplane battles probably shouldn't be given much weight in a survey about whether there should be a TO mode. What's more, occasional surveys would show that Gaijin truly cares about the opinions of their players!

 

Personally I think we don't need a separate mode. We could have some maps and/or weather conditions which allow planes, and some that don't. A mix of both. For both AB and RB. Bad weather conditions would be a reasonable justification for preventing air support from spawning.

 

@warrior412 you make a terrible error in assuming that a lack of recent posts supporting TO indicates the level of preference for it. It may be that a huge number of people have a slight preference for TO, but not so much that they bother to come to the forum to ask for it.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cosworth1977 said:

Would it be fun make a poll on the launcher with the question about TO or Combined.     

So Gaijin can't stick their head in the sand and ignore what playerbase wants.   

If people favor more towards the Combined or TO it will show in the poll.

There was a poll on other thread and 400+ people answered it. Pretty limited amount for the game this size.

 

1 hour ago, LtChambers said:

Like @cosworth1977 said, Gaijin should just (occasionally) put opinion surveys in the game to settle some of the more controversial issues, like this one. The survey is easy, but the analysis is a little more nuanced, e.g. people that only play airplane battles probably shouldn't be given much weight in a survey about whether there should be a TO mode. What's more, occasional surveys would show that Gaijin truly cares about the opinions of their players!

No need for that.If someone wants to push an idea you have more than 400+ pages to read from 2 and half years ago.It's easy to vote about it but the thing that people forget that gaijin has to implement it and it is way harder than we think.If we do like it is right now I guarantee that 2-3 nations will stomp everyone else no matter the BR.That not only will be pleasant to play but also gaijin loses income from selling heli and planes.That would mean that gaijin would shoot in his own leg.Even if you make a poll everyone has to be equal because if not subjective opinions will led nowhere.Same applies to any change in the game.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, croatiankiller said:

There was a poll on other thread and 400+ people answered it. Pretty limited amount for the game this size.

 

No need for that.If someone wants to push an idea you have more than 400+ pages to read from 2 and half years ago.It's easy to vote about it but the thing that people forget that gaijin has to implement it and it is way harder than we think.If we do like it is right now I guarantee that 2-3 nations will stomp everyone else no matter the BR.That not only will be pleasant to play but also gaijin loses income from selling heli and planes.That would mean that gaijin would shoot in his own leg.Even if you make a poll everyone has to be equal because if not subjective opinions will led nowhere.Same applies to any change in the game.

Don't forget that poll was on forum.  And you know how many players visit the forums.      Easier to do it in launcher or ingame when you have tanks selected so people who don't use tanks are out of the voting.

Or take the votes from all players including people who use planes, No clue what the amount of pilots are and the amount of people who use both

 

Are there any numbers of percentage of people only using planes or playing combined ?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Himish said:

The biggest conflict with realism with the CAS in War Thunder is because of the accuracy that can be acieved. It is not so much because of the modelled behavior of the vehicles, but because of the behavior of players, who are less risk averse than actual pilots.

 

Even IRL in some cases kamikaze pilots were statistically more effective uses of planes than having the pilots try to save the plane and themselves for another mission in terms of damage to the enemy war effort versus planes lost. Take away the experience of physically being there and having to keep yourself alive, but on the other hand add in an arcadey flight model with a HUD and perfectly accurate total velocity vectors and it's no wonder SPAA are a bit lackluster against planes in WT.

 

Authentic to real life gameplay just isn't something easily achieved because players are just trying to win, rather than trying to win AND survive. That's without even considering the limitations of format, player count and player choice. And as far as immersion goes, getting kamikazed by a biplane in your king tiger or whatever is fairly immersion breaking.

 

47 minutes ago, croatiankiller said:

There was a poll on other thread and 400+ people answered it. Pretty limited amount for the game this size.

 

A subsection of a subsection of a subsection of the playerbase found and answered to a poll. Regardless of the result that's not going to be a very representative sample now is it?

 

If they put a question about TO in a wider querie to the playerbase just to gauge interest gaijin would stand to lose absolutely nothing, regardless of what any of us here think about TO.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cosworth1977 said:

Would it be fun make a poll on the launcher with the question about TO or Combined.     

So Gaijin can't stick their head in the sand and ignore what playerbase wants.   


Gaijin commonly solicits surveys like that around the time of new patches. (They also answered a Q&A inquiry on TO as well.)

 

Gaijin has not ignored the matter of TO.

 

3 hours ago, cosworth1977 said:

If people favor more towards the Combined or TO it will show in the poll.


In the forum poll that was held, the split was highly indecisive (confirming the problematic matter of playerbase splitting).

 

3 hours ago, cosworth1977 said:

Seeing how some active posters here are narcissistic in the first place and everything goes   evolves around them and not the subject of this topic


While there are a lot of TO supporters who have been very...“dedicated” we’ll call it, I would say the biggest problem that has kept dogging this thread is their insistence on making the thread about moderates like myself.

 

I have told them that it’s flattering that they’re so interested in myself and others, but I have also denounced such conduct.

 

2 hours ago, LtChambers said:

 

@warrior412 you make a terrible error in assuming that a lack of recent posts supporting TO indicates the level of preference for it. It may be that a huge number of people have a slight preference for TO, but not so much that they bother to come to the forum to ask for it.


That is doubtful. TO advocates are actually overrepresented here due to motivation bias—meaning that it can be presumed the average level of support is lower.

 

In light of that and the inverse (people uninterested but only slightly so), my estimations are probably “in the ballpark” as accuracy goes.

 

8 hours ago, [email protected] said:

Shame on me for ignoring this thread all february break.

IDK what BR's you're playing at, but at the middle tiers from like 3.7-6.7 aircraft are not sparse AT ALL.


1.0-8.3 is the range I’ve been playing lately.
 

Aircraft usually only amount to about 8-12 spawns from each team, if that. Compared to the number of tanks used, aircraft are far fewer in number (hence “relatively sparse”).

Edited by warrior412
  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

 


That is doubtful. TO advocates are actually overrepresented here due to motivation bias—meaning that it can be presumed the average level of support is lower.

 

In light of that and the inverse (people uninterested but only slightly so), my estimations are probably “in the ballpark” as accuracy goes.

I didn't mean to imply that I think there is evidence one way or the other of the majority's slight preferences. I'm just saying that people with slight preferences don't bother to come to the forum to voice them. So it could go either way.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...