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
54 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Wanted to make another video about how close air support, CAS, is still way too powerful in War Thunder's ground realistic mode. Instead of rambling about it though, I just gathered some gameplay and threw this together. Hope it gets the point across. It's not meant to show how easy it is to get kills with stuff like the A-4E and G.91, moreso to show how easy it is to spawn these things in the first place. Here's hoping Gaijin changes the spawn point cost system."

 

 

Nice off-topic post, but this thread is about TO. Take that to this thread:

 

 

With that said, I will point out the video’s premises are nonsense and even the video itself prove it:

 

-Spookston was met by limited opposition—and of what opposition he did face (the MiG-15), he defeated it. The enemies fielded few defenses and they were outplayed and defeated—so what? :facepalm:

 

-As shown in the video, CAS is already vastly more expensive than any ground vehicle—it doesn’t need to be further smothered under absurdly high(er) SP costs just because some people end up outplayed and defeated by it.

 

The video only thing the video really serves to show is a derision toward fair triumphs and their results (as with the MiG-15) and an ignorance toward other vehicles’ spawn costs. These problems  mean the video cannot be taken seriously as anything meaningful.


As a commentary on CAS, there are many other faults with this video, including:

 

-the limited range of vehicles looked at (top tier—notorious for being a balancing mess and a place where people refrain from smart moves like playing counters)

 

-the video’s edited nature (who knows how many “fails” weren’t included?)

 

-the video’s failure to consider the greater ease and deadliness of tanks for their cost (to disregard this is a blatant double standard)

 

Overall, this video is just an example of anti-aircraft bias in action. As a tanker who is impartial toward vehicles, I can say that video is little more than mere propaganda.
 

Blaming CAS for others being outplayed and defeated is just absurd—why should tankers who fly be derided and punished for outplaying and defeating their competitors? Why should they be attacked for success? :facepalm:
 

As a balance advocate and tanker myself, I can safely say CAS is balancedyou just have to learn to  counter CAS like any other sort of flanker. (That this has to be said explains the continuous decline of player quality in WT—people are too busy howling “CAS OP! :crying: ” to L2P as they should.)

 

Anti-aircraft bias like this needs to stop. CAS having some teeth and ability to compete does not mean CAS is imbalanced (it means CAS is balanced). Put simply, anti-aircraft bias is anti-WT.

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Nice off-topic post, but this thread is about TO. Take that to this thread:

What off topic when it talks about the reasons why people want TO?

5 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

With that said, I will point out the video’s premises are nonsense and even the video itself prove it:

 

-Spookston was met by limited opposition—and of what opposition he did face (the MiG-15), he defeated it. The enemies fielded few defenses and they were outplayed and defeated—so what? :facepalm:

Oh yes, everyone besides You meet limited opposition or weak opponents :016:

5 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

-As shown in the video, CAS is already vastly more expensive than any ground vehicle—it doesn’t need to be further smothered under absurdly high(er) SP costs just because some people end up outplayed and defeated by it.

Thanks for proving that You don't understand the video or the message 

6 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

The video only thing the video really serves to show is a derision toward fair triumphs and their results (as with the MiG-15) and an ignorance toward other vehicles’ spawn costs. These problems  mean the video cannot be taken seriously as anything meaningful.

:lol2:

6 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Overall, this video is just an example of anti-aircraft bias in action. As a tanker who is impartial toward vehicles, I can say that video is little more than mere propaganda.

With that again? I'm getting a little bored reading the same thing that was proven to be false. Spookston is mostly a tanker like myself and I have the same point of view at this, like many other people, but everything that is not supporting Your agenda is "anti-aircarft bias" :lol2:

8 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Blaming CAS for others being outplayed and defeated is just absurd—why should tankers who fly be derided and punished for outplaying and defeating their competitors? Why should they be attacked for success? :facepalm:

Oh yes, being killed in a tank and taking a plane to kamikaze-bomb someone is called "outplaying" :lol2:

8 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

As a balance advocate and tanker myself, I can safely say CAS is balancedyou just have to learn to  counter CAS like any other sort of flanker. (That this has to be said explains the continuous decline of player quality in WT—people are too busy howling “CAS OP! :crying: ” to L2P as they should.

As a tanker and a person who advocate for balance I can seafely say CAS is not balanced. 

 

And in other topics I have already explained that WT as a whole is by far only pro-aircraft, not anti aircraft. Please stop with such stupid claims and tries to derail the topic :good:. If you need some explenation how to use your planes well or how to use advantages that plane give, You over tanks You can contact me in PM's. 

  • 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
36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

What off topic when it talks about the reasons why people want TO?


Concerns about the CAS balance is the subject of CAS balance thread, not the TO thread—it’s very simple.

 

Unfortunately, people have bloated and derailed this topic with anti-aircraft bias which has destroyed actual TO discussion time and time again. It can be fairly said that anti-aircraft bias has blocked progress on TO—ironic, eh?

 

36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Oh yes, everyone besides You meet limited opposition or weak opponents :016:

 

It’s got nothing to do with me—I am just pointing out what the video showed. Spookston did not run into many enemy counters and, of those he did, he outright defeated an enemy counter (the MiG-15).

 

Did you even watch the video? :facepalm:
 

36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Thanks for proving that You don't understand the video or the message 


Incorrect: I understood everything—the video’s premises were simply wrong,  the numbers showed it and I called that out. It’s simple:

 

600+ SP for an aircraft > 400 SP for a ground vehicle

 

Complaints about aircraft SP costs being “too low” while they’re far higher than tanks’ costs are simply biased, especially as tanks do far more.
 

36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

With that again? I'm getting a little bored reading the same thing that was proven to be false.

 

What I have said has been proven correct over and over again many, many times now—no matter how much you might try to deny it.

 

It’s very sad that some people hate aircraft so much that they deny the facts and truth like this...but that’s where we are and why anti-aircraft bias is such a horrid problem.

 

36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Spookston is mostly a tanker like myself and I have the same point of view at this, like many other people, but everything that is not supporting Your agenda is "anti-aircarft bias" :lol2:


Yeah...pointing out someone to be mainly a tanker doesn’t help paint them as impartial—it does the opposite. (Your comments actually support what I have said.)

 

As for my agenda...lol—we’ve been over this: my only agenda is speaking the truth. That is all I have done here and rightfully calling out anti-aircraft bias as anti-aircraft bias is what a fair-minded balance advocate like myself must do.

 

I have just told it like it is—sorry if that upsets you. :good:
 

36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Oh yes, being killed in a tank and taking a plane to kamikaze-bomb someone is called "outplaying" :lol2:


Having enough SP to get the most expensive kind of vehicle in the modes means you’d have to have done something.
 

Being defeated by a tanker who flies doesn’t mean CAS is OP, it means you lost—do better next time.

 

36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As a tanker and a person who advocate for balance I can seafely say CAS is not balanced. 

 

And in other topics I have already explained that WT as a whole is by far only pro-aircraft, not anti aircraft.


Nonsense. You only say that because you’ve disregarded all of the proof that shows the opposite.

 

CAS is balanced but the people biased against aircraft will never admit it—they refuse to be fair to aircraft and do not respect their rightful place in WT.

 

36 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Please stop with such stupid claims and tries to derail the topic :good:. If you need some explenation how to use your planes well or how to use advantages that plane give, You over tanks You can contact me in PM's. 


You’re the one posting the video in the wrong thread to derail, not me.

 

Also, lmao: if I need advice on how to set bushes and manipulate ULQ for statpadding, I’ll be sure to call you. :lol2: Beyond that, I do just fine. There’s nothing you have to offer me. ;)
 

Now, enough of that—this thread is for TO discussion, not whimpering about defeats by aircraft. Stay on topic.

 

 

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

snip

Sorry but I'm not going to write the same thing all over again, if You want answears to Your replies, You can find them some pages ago.

I don't want again to show everyone how Your facts are just Your words and interpretations but when someone shows You real evidence in a form of video or screanshoot You are all about how other people have said the same thing as You did :016:

If you really care about "derailing the topic", You can write to me on PM's instead of writing the same mantra that was discussed few pages ago just to tell everyone how this topic has so many pages and no one have done anything :good:

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Sorry but I'm not going to write the same thing all over again, if You want answears to Your replies, You can find them some pages ago.

I don't want again to show everyone how Your facts are just Your words and interpretations


Yeah...just as could have been expected, you have no counterarguments to the facts that I have laid out—you’re just denying things.

 

The facts I have laid out are neither my words nor interpretations—they are facts. 600+ SP costs are more than sub-400 SP costs—that’s a fact and you should know. (If not...ouch, best refrain from discussion then.)

 

10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

when someone shows You real evidence in a form of video or screanshoot You are all about how other people have said the same thing as You did 


Incorrect. You have a record of citing and posting faulty evidence that is contradicted by others and often objective reality too.

 

Pointing out the frequently poor bases for your claims is nothing for me to feel bad about—I am just being impartial for doing so.


If you had good evidence, I’d be happy to look at it—you just have never presented any.

 

14 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

If you really care about "derailing the topic", You can write to me on PM's instead of writing the same mantra that was discussed few pages ago just to tell everyone how this topic has so many pages and no one have done anything :good:


I have simply corrected the record—I have had to set things straight.

 

You started derailing things with that CAS balance post that’s out of place, not I. That sort of thing is how this thread has become a bloated failure.

 

Discuss TO here—not other things.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would definitely support a ground only game. The match maker is horrendous. The CAS ruins the game. You literally spawn in get killed, spawn in AA and MAYBE have time to kill a plane before you are immediately killed by another. This would go a LONG way to making the game playable. As it is, anyone who says CAS is not OP is playing some other game. Also fix the darn match maker too! Way too many times I get games where I might as well just not bother playing. Can't pen anything. And when do we stop the nonsense of Low Rezzing? I mean why bother making a gorgeous game if the looks do nothing but make it so you can't see someone who CAN see you because his graphics are turned down low. Might as well go back to CGI game or make it Roblocs. But that particular "feature" has been with this game since the beginning. Oh, and lets talk about the barrel hits and the laser accuracy of the guns. MOA in tanks ins measured in FEET not INCHES. Been in the military barrel hits were so rare not to mention they are ROUND most rounds would just deflect...especially machine gun and auto cannon rounds.

   But I digress. Let's just start with a ground battle only game. :P

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warrior412 said:

Yeah...just as could have been expected, you have no counterarguments to the facts that I have laid out—you’re just denying things.

 

The facts I have laid out are neither my words nor interpretations—they are facts. 600+ SP costs are more than sub-400 SP costs—that’s a fact and you should know. (If not...ouch, best refrain from discussion then.)

SP cost was explained by me some pages ago, You can look it up. 

Just now, warrior412 said:

Incorrect. You have a record of citing and posting faulty evidence that is contradicted by others and often objective reality too.

 

Pointing out the frequently poor bases for your claims is nothing for me to feel bad about—I am just being impartial for doing so.


If you had good evidence, I’d be happy to look at it—you just have never presented any.

 

Faulty evidence as it was with 12,7mm destroying guns, please, I don't want to go about it again. 

 

1 minute ago, warrior412 said:

I have simply corrected the record—I have had to set things straight.

 

You started derailing things with that CAS balance post that’s out of place, not I. That sort of thing is how this thread has become a bloated failure.

 

Discuss TO here—not other things.

And then this:

23 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Also, lmao: if I need advice on how to set bushes and manipulate ULQ for statpadding, I’ll be sure to call you. :lol2: Beyond that, I do just fine. There’s nothing you have to offer me. ;)

Please, if You want to discuss something with me please write a PM and stop derailing the topic to say a couple pages later how after so many pages nothing has happened :good:

  • Like 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
7 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

SP cost was explained by me some pages ago, You can look it up. 


I explained then to you before, but I’ll ask again:
 

Do you believe GFs with SP costs of 70-180 SP cost more than aircraft with SP costs of 480+? This is a very basic math problem... :dntknw:

 

10 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Faulty evidence as it was with 12,7mm destroying guns, please, I don't want to go about it again. 


As was already explained to you, you confused an RNG mechanic with something consistent.

 

Now, enough off-topic tangents.

 

12 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Please, if You want to discuss something with me please write a PM and stop derailing the topic to say a couple pages later how after so many pages nothing has happened :good:


You’re just accusing me of what you’ve done.

 

You posted that video in the wrong thread and have brought up these confused tangents, not I.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Do you believe GFs with SP costs of 70-180 SP cost more than aircraft with SP costs of 480+? This is a very basic math problem... :dntknw:

And I will tell You again. If You want to play airplane as your first choice You can choose other gamemode (what tanker's can't).

This is how gamemode is made and if You want to play it You have to accept that in order to spawn in a plane You have first to spawn in a tank. 

3 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

As was already explained to you, you confused an RNG mechanic with something consistent.

 

Now, enough off-topic tangents.

As I already explained You have failed to provide any evidence while I have provided many evidence showing the same thing :good:

3 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

You’re just accusing me of what you’ve done.

 

You posted that video in the wrong thread and have brought up these confused tangents, not I.

Just pointing out hypocrisy :lol2:

Video is in a right topic as already explained.

Please stop with derailing the topic and write me on PM if You want to discuss something instead of making the topic bigger just to say how it is big and nothing has been done :good:

 

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
Just now, ULQ_LOVER said:

And I will tell You again. If You want to play airplane as your first choice You can choose other gamemode (what tanker's can't).

This is how gamemode is made and if You want to play it You have to accept that in order to spawn in a plane You have first to spawn in a tank. 


Other game modes are not relevant to discussion of aircraft in RB GFs. Those other modes have no bearing on aircraft SP costs, so they have no relevance here nor is the discussion strictly about first spawns.

 

Trying to insist that outside modes matter is just an effort to discriminate against aircraft and treat them unfairly. That’s just anti-aircraft bias.

 

4 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As I already explained You have failed to provide any evidence while I have provided many evidence showing the same thing :good:


False—I provided evidence and pointed out others’ corroboration for my comments correcting you. Alas, you still cling to your videos which have been shown to be meaningless by the nature of the mechanic being talked about and in the face of overwhelming contradictory testimony.

 

You were wrong; just move on and stop derailing other threads like this.

 

7 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Video is in a right topic as already explained.


Untrue—it’s just another example of anti-aircraft bias hijacking this thread and preventing legitimate discussion.

 

8 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Please stop with derailing the topic and write me on PM if You want to discuss something instead of making the topic bigger just to say how it is big and nothing has been done :good:


I have not derailed the topic—stop falsely accusing me of things I am innocent of.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, warrior412 said:

Other game modes are not relevant to discussion of aircraft in RB GFs. Those other modes have no bearing on aircraft SP costs, so they have no relevance here nor is the discussion strictly about first spawns.

 

Trying to insist that outside modes matter is just an effort to discriminate against aircraft and treat them unfairly. That’s just anti-aircraft bias.

I think You are writing in wrong topic:

This is the topic talking abour aircrafts in RB GFs. 

2 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

False—I provided evidence and pointed out others’ corroboration for my comments correcting you. Alas, you still cling to your videos which have been shown to be meaningless by the nature of the mechanic being talked about and in the face of overwhelming contradictory testimony.

 

You were wrong; just move on and stop derailing other threads like this.

You haven't provided any evidence besides words. Really stop writing false informations, anyone can check it and I don't want to post links to discussion again in this topic :good:

3 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Untrue—it’s just another example of anti-aircraft bias hijacking this thread and preventing legitimate discussion.

Please stop derailing the topic by making some theories about "anti aircraft bias"

3 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I have not derailed the topic—stop falsely accusing me of things I am innocent of.

Please stop derailing the topic talking about ULQ and bushes in game or other things that are not related to TO, if You want to discuss them or learn how to play effectively You can write to me on PMs

  • 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
1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

Nice off-topic post, but this thread is about TO. Take that to this thread:

Considering that the status of CAS is the very reason why many people want a TO mode, it is more than fair to bring this up. Also, seeing you, the guy who goes off-topic whenever somebody mentions the Pz4 or Jumbo no matter on which topic, complain about off-topic is rather amusing.

 

1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

-As shown in the video, CAS is already vastly more expensive than any ground vehicle—it doesn’t need to be further smothered under absurdly high(er) SP costs just because some people end up outplayed and defeated by it.

The video is also undeniable evidence of how a single kill allows you to spawn even the most potent CAS planes.

 

1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

Overall, this video is just an example of anti-aircraft bias in action. As a tanker who is impartial toward vehicles, I can say that video is little more than mere propaganda.

You have zero experience in the br range of the video so what is your statement based on? AGM armed planes are not comparable with your regular P-47 or Me410. Spookston has the experience and the data backing him.

 

1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

As a balance advocate and tanker myself, I can safely say CAS is balancedyou just have to learn to  counter CAS like any other sort of flanker.

The only problem is that there is no effective ground-based counter to aircraft. SPAA is a joke and both TS and even your stats prove that quite easily. Forcing people to also grind out the air tree for every nation they play tanks with, even if they play WT because of tanks is also not a fair solution. 

 

 

Edited by Darkrocket14
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

I think You are writing in wrong topic:

This is the topic talking abour aircrafts in RB GFs. 


Eh, obviously you’re just trolling around with this now. You post something here that belongs there but it’s my fault that you started a discussion in the wrong place? Nope, not how it works.

 

You still have no rationale for your comments either—you just say them to rail against AFs.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You haven't provided any evidence besides words. Really stop writing false informations, anyone can check it and I don't want to post links to discussion again in this topic 


Nothing I have said is false—it’s just how it is. 
 

Witness testimony is more than just words and corroborating witness testimony (as it was the case there) is worth far more than a video from a person mistaking an RNG mechanic for something consistent.

 

You were wrong—move on from it already and stop derailing topics over it.

 

1 hour ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Please stop derailing the topic by making some theories about "anti aircraft bias"


I have not derailed the thread nor have I done anything wrong by pointing out anti-aircraft bias.
 

Lying about me like that will just make no one believe you, as they can see and know I have done nothing wrong.


————

 

53 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

Considering that the status of CAS is the very reason why many people want a TO mode, it is more than fair to bring this up.


Not really, as the video doesn’t show anything supporting the claims of “CAS OP!” that people seeking refuge would like it to be. They might try twisting it as such, but that’s just an illusion of their own making.

 

The video shows Spookston outplaying and defeating some people—so? If his enemies didn’t want him to do that, they should ask players like that MiG-15 to do better and act to prevent him from succeeding. Being defeated does not necessitate a new mode.

 

If a hatred of competition is what drives some people to TO, soon we’ll need a modes without the Jumbo/IS-6/etc when they tire of those too...when would it stop?

 

53 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

Also, seeing you, the guy who goes off-topic whenever somebody mentions the Pz4 or Jumbo no matter on which topic, complain about off-topic is rather amusing.


I just tell it like it is—and just as I had to correct the record here, sometimes I have had to point out efforts to cover up things like the Panzer IVs’ years of clubbing and the myth of the Jumbo too.

 

If people just spoke the honest facts, I wouldn’t have to point out how false claims they make are incorrect and/or misleading.

 

 

My comments have not been off-topic, just pursuant to objectivity. Someone has had to keep it real and I have been the one doing that.

 

53 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

The video is also undeniable evidence of how a single kill allows you to spawn even the most potent CAS planes.


Earned SP is earned SP. If he earned enogh SP to use an aircraft, it is his absolute right to use his SP however he pleases.

 

As it stands, you’re ignoring the massive disparity in SP costs and that makes complaints about aircraft costs a joke. When tanks are dirt cheap to spawn, there’s no room to say aircraft are too low.

 

53 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

You have zero experience in the br range of the video so what is your statement based on? AGM armed planes are not comparable with your regular P-47 or Me410. Spookston has the experience and the data backing him.


My statement is based on understanding the game—if a team doesn’t protect a flank (like the sky—and they didn’t), then the enemy can use that against them (as he did).

 

Succeeding in the face of little opposition is neither noteworthy nor proof of anything. It was a montage—that’s about all that can be said of it.

 

53 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

The only problem is that there is no effective ground-based counter to aircraft. SPAA is a joke and both TS and even your stats prove that quite easily.


Untrue—people just mistake unfiltered SPAA statistics for something else. Tanks kill SPAAs and many people use SPAAs as wannabe TDs—that skews the numbers.

 

As counters, SPAAs are fine (especially for their often absurdly low prices).

 

53 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

Forcing people to also grind out the air tree for every nation they play tanks with, even if they play WT because of tanks is also not a fair solution. 


Nobody has said they must.

Edited by warrior412
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Eh, obviously you’re just trolling around with this now. You post something here that belongs there but it’s my fault that you started a discussion in the wrong place? Nope, not how it works.

 

You still have no rationale for your comments either—you just say them to rail against AFs.

I have posted something that relates to the topic discussed here. 

54 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Nothing I have said is false—it’s just how it is. 
 

Witness testimony is more than just words and corroborating witness testimony (as it was the case there) is worth far more than a video from a person mistaking an RNG mechanic for something consistent.

 

You were wrong—move on from it already and stop derailing topics over it.

Video evidence proved otherwise while You failed to provide any counter evidence besides "words". 

As people even in this thread told You, "words" mean nothing against real and unbiased evidence that all people can see.

55 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

I have not derailed the thread nor have I done anything wrong by pointing out anti-aircraft bias.
 

Lying about me like that will just make no one believe you, as they can see and know I have done nothing wrong.

You are derailing the topic all the time while I still invite You to discuss things with me on PMs. I have never lied about You because all I have said can be found in this topic :good:

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ULQ_LOVER said:

I have posted something that relates to the topic discussed here. 

 

Not really. The connection is specious at best--especially given that you said nothing about TO.

 

It's just another example of how and why this thread has become a bloated mess that has accomplished nothing. People railing against aircraft are the main cause of the bloat.

 

2 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Video evidence proved otherwise while You failed to provide any counter evidence besides "words".

 

False. You provided footage of an RNG mechanic in action...something prone to variation and were informed of this. Numerous people pointed out their own observations were different than your own. Considering all that, your videos were meaningless--but since you do not understand why they were unremarkable as evidence, you cling to them still. You just don't understand--that's all.

 

4 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

As people even in this thread told You, "words" mean nothing against real and unbiased evidence that all people can see.

 

The real and unbiased evidence is available for all to see--and that evidence backs what I have said. Do not worry--one day you'll understand it too. :good:

 

6 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You are derailing the topic all the time while I still invite You to discuss things with me on PMs. I have never lied about You because all I have said can be found in this topic

 

Wrong. As for PMs, there's no reason for me to talk with there except to help inform you on the things that you're mistaken about. I'll let you start on that if you'd like the help.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Not really. The connection is specious at best--especially given that you said nothing about TO.

 

It's just another example of how and why this thread has become a bloated mess that has accomplished nothing. People railing against aircraft are the main cause of the bloat.

Again, you are bloating the topic by writing the same thing all over again when even another person pointed out that the video belongs here.

And You have just done what I have said You will do:

"If you really care about "derailing the topic", You can write to me on PM's instead of writing the same mantra that was discussed few pages ago just to tell everyone how this topic has so many pages and no one have done anything"

If You really cared about the topic You would write a PM to me :good:

8 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

False. You provided footage of an RNG mechanic in action...something prone to variation and were informed of this. Numerous people pointed out their own observations were different than your own. Considering all that, your videos were meaningless--but since you do not understand why they were unremarkable as evidence, you cling to them still. You just don't understand--that's all.

I provided videos that You asked for while You haven't provided any. EOT here.

8 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

The real and unbiased evidence is available for all to see--and that evidence backs what I have said. Do not worry--one day you'll understand it too. :good:

Can't find that evidence when it is coming from one or two persons against many more. Like really You don't see a problem when the only thing You can do is say "it is because I say it is like that" against a footage evidence of something and many people reporting about the situation? 

8 minutes ago, warrior412 said:

Wrong. As for PMs, there's no reason for me to talk with there except to help inform you on the things that you're mistaken about. I'll let you start on that if you'd like the help.

So thanks for proving that You really don't care about the topic and what I have said before:

"If you really care about "derailing the topic", You can write to me on PM's instead of writing the same mantra that was discussed few pages ago just to tell everyone how this topic has so many pages and no one have done anything"

is just true.

 

Like really I'm bored having the same conversation with you all over again because You fail to understand how the gamemode works (yes, I can't wait to read how You understand it perfectly and no one else does). Can't really wait till You show us old stats that You couldn't even read right (yes we all know, that only You can read them right and all people are wrong). If You really cared about the topic, You would just simply give links to Your previous replies instead of writing the same thing and making discussion to be about the same thing. I have just posted a video from another youtuber that sees the problem that people here are talking about. From the "it is not a topic about it" You have just proven how You really don't understand what people are here talking about. I hope many more youtubers will talk about this problem as it happened before rocket nerf (can't wait to read again how it was about rocket model being wrong) and we will see some improvments in gameplay if not a TO being added :good:

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
11 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I provided videos that You asked for while You haven't provided any.

 

There was no point. The evidence was already there and it was overwhelming.

 

Numerous people testified to seeing results different from your own--your claim was the outlier and so it could be called as much.

 

12 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Can't find that evidence when it is coming from one or two persons against many more. Like really You don't see a problem when the only thing You can do is say "it is because I say it is like that" against a footage evidence of something and many people reporting about the situation? 

 

There you go again...lying about the evidence. At least four people testified to seeing different results from your own with an RNG mechanic. You were the only one claiming your experiences to be the standard, despite numerous contradictions that rendered your claim to be--yet you cling to them still. You obviously don't understand why your "evidence" was dismissed--it wasn't relevant. :facepalm:

 

I was simply amongst the majority in pointing out your claims were the outlier--it's not my fault your claims were the outlier.

 

17 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

So thanks for proving that You really don't care about the topic and what I have said before:

"If you really care about "derailing the topic", You can write to me on PM's instead of writing the same mantra that was discussed few pages ago just to tell everyone how this topic has so many pages and no one have done anything"

is just true.

 

Nope---my comments just show I am not willing to let you mislead people with false, inaccurate statements in this thread. I will correct the records with the truth when need be, such as when you post false statements about CAS, aircraft balance, etc. I speak up about keeping the thread on topic because tangents like your own (often yours specifically) are what have bloated this thread and prevented discussion.

 

There is no reason for me to initiate a PM with you, as you've shown you will just deny any help or informative efforts I try (even so, if you have a change of heart and would like me to assist you, you may PM for me help).

 

22 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Like really I'm bored having the same conversation with you all over again

 

If you didn't keep posting incorrect claims I wouldn't have to correct you so often. If being wrong bores you, be correct and listen to the facts that I've pointed out to you instead. :good:

 

24 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

You fail to understand how the gamemode works (yes, I can't wait to read how You understand it perfectly and no one else does)

 

My understanding of the game is fine--after all, I'm not the one complaining about aircraft in a combined arms game. :lol2:

 

26 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Can't really wait till You show us old stats that You couldn't even read right (yes we all know, that only You can read them right and all people are wrong)

 

There you go again...misrepresenting the evidence and facts. It's shamefully dishonest for you to do that. :facepalm:

 

In actuality, the statistics were current when they were publicly posted and easily read (far from claiming I was the only one able to read them, I said they were elementary). Numerous people were able to read the statistics and those informed individuals confirmed what the data said and concurred with my assessment. The only people who ever seemed to disagree with my analysis were the people who didn't understand how to read the data --their inability to understand isn't my fault nor is it any bad reflection on the data. (I remember that you kept having trouble with the statistics because you continually mixed two sets of data. I offered you help and repeatedly explained how these things work, but you never understood.)

 

All that one really needs to know is that the statistics proved the "planes OP!" talk was nonsense--and so the people who hate aircraft have been upset about that ever since. They're just upset at having been proven wrong, that's all.

 

41 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I have just posted a video from another youtuber that sees the problem that people here are talking about.

 

The video is a nothingburger. It showed a guy outplaying and defeating people--where's the problem? Since when is competition in a competitive game a problem? :facepalm:

 

Fake outrage over being outplayed and defeated and these demands for the opposition to be nerfed are exactly why WT has teams of awful players now. People don't need their competition to be nerfed, they need to L2P.

 

44 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I hope many more youtubers will talk about this problem as it happened before rocket nerf (can't wait to read again how it was about rocket model being wrong)

 

The change from 1.69 to 1.71 was a botched rocket remodel--as any buddy that read the development notes from that time knows. Beyond that, it's telling that you advocate for changes like that to happen: there was a 10% drop in players around that time. Players were not happy about aircraft being hobbled as they were by that botched change--they'd like it when aircraft had a fair shake.

 

Changes inspired by anti-aircraft bias are bad for the game--we've seen it over and over again. Aircraft grow the game and make it great (they're how the game came to be), anti-aircraft hurts the game. People who don't understand that don't understand WT.

 

47 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

we will see some improvments in gameplay if not a TO being added 

 

Yeah...no, not likely. TO advocates have told us "TO is right around the corner!" for three years. That quip looks even more baseless than usual now. Interest in TO has collapsed and the game's direction has moved further and further away from a TO mode (even if you ignore Gaijin's outright denial of the idea).

 

For instance:

 

 

Per @Smin1080p :

 

Quote
  • Preset nuclear weapon-carrying aircraft have been added to RB tank battles. When a player spawns in such an aircraft, an air raid signal is triggered at the capture points. The bomb can only be dropped on the battlefield part of the map (where ground vehicles of the players are moving) so the enemy team will have a chance to intercept. After a successful bomb drop and detonation the team scores an instant victory. Aircraft nuclear weapon carriers are available for respawn for all players if they accumulate enough (3000 respawn score) and are divided by rank of the game session:
    • BR 6.7-7.7: Тu-4 / B-29A-BN;
    • BR 8.0-9.0: Il-28 / Canberra B.Mk.6;
    • BR 9.3+: Su-7BKL / Jaguar A

 

That doesn't sound like TO, does it?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

There was no point. The evidence was already there and it was overwhelming.

 

Numerous people testified to seeing results different from your own--your claim was the outlier and so it could be called as much.

3 people is not an overwhelming number. I can find many people saying that the earth is flat and their number will be overwhelming compared to just You :good:

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

There you go again...lying about the evidence. At least four people testified to seeing different results from your own with an RNG mechanic. You were the only one claiming your experiences to be the standard, despite numerous contradictions that rendered your claim to be--yet you cling to them still. You obviously don't understand why your "evidence" was dismissed--it wasn't relevant. :facepalm:

 

I was simply amongst the majority in pointing out your claims were the outlier--it's not my fault your claims were the outlier.

How am I lying? Have You provided video evidence? If I'm lying please cite it :good:. Besides me, no one have provided any evidence just their words, and people can write whatever they want.

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Nope---my comments just show I am not willing to let you mislead people with false, inaccurate statements in this thread. I will correct the records with the truth when need be, such as when you post false statements about CAS, aircraft balance, etc. I speak up about keeping the thread on topic because tangents like your own (often yours specifically) are what have bloated this thread and prevented discussion.

 

There is no reason for me to initiate a PM with you, as you've shown you will just deny any help or informative efforts I try (even so, if you have a change of heart and would like me to assist you, you may PM for me help).

What false and inaccurate statments? I would like to know them because for every statment I have provided real evidence, not only my words backing it up. I have shown everything I have been talking about and I was using unbiased evidence for it. Please cite for what I haven't provided any evidence so I can do it :good:

Of course it is me about bloating the thread after You have repeated Your own words over and over again like I have said in first response to You. I'm just correcting Your lies here.

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

If you didn't keep posting incorrect claims I wouldn't have to correct you so often. If being wrong bores you, be correct and listen to the facts that I've pointed out to you instead. :good:

Again, I would like to see any "incorrect" claim that I haven't provided any evidence for, so I can do it :good:

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

My understanding of the game is fine--after all, I'm not the one complaining about aircraft in a combined arms game. :lol2:

And I have proven that I can use aircrafts far better than You called them being able to :lol2:

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

There you go again...misrepresenting the evidence and facts. It's shamefully dishonest for you to do that. :facepalm:

 

In actuality, the statistics were current when they were publicly posted and easily read (far from claiming I was the only one able to read them, I said they were elementary). Numerous people were able to read the statistics and those informed individuals confirmed what the data said and concurred with my assessment. The only people who ever seemed to disagree with my analysis were the people who didn't understand how to read the data --their inability to understand isn't my fault nor is it any bad reflection on the data. (I remember that you kept having trouble with the statistics because you continually mixed two sets of data. I offered you help and repeatedly explained how these things work, but you never understood.)

 

All that one really needs to know is that the statistics proved the "planes OP!" talk was nonsense--and so the people who hate aircraft have been upset about that ever since. They're just upset at having been proven wrong, that's all.

I have never misread, misinterpret evidence as facts.

All I have said was even backed up by stats that You were using, simple thing was that You couldn't understand that You need to know how gamemode works to use them. Numerous people were able to point it out to You while we were talking about it a couple pages ago, You can look it up and read again if You still have problems with it.

Stats You were using have shown that while comparing ground units vs aircrafts to aircrafts vs ground units, aircrafts had an advantage.

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

The video is a nothingburger. It showed a guy outplaying and defeating people--where's the problem? Since when is competition in a competitive game a problem? :facepalm:

 

Fake outrage over being outplayed and defeated and these demands for the opposition to be nerfed are exactly why WT has teams of awful players now. People don't need their competition to be nerfed, they need to L2P.

Thanks again for proving, that You don't understand the game and what is being talked about here :good:

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

The change from 1.69 to 1.71 was a botched rocket remodel--as any buddy that read the development notes from that time knows. Beyond that, it's telling that you advocate for changes like that to happen: there was a 10% drop in players around that time. Players were not happy about aircraft being hobbled as they were by that botched change--they'd like it when aircraft had a fair shake.

 

Changes inspired by anti-aircraft bias are bad for the game--we've seen it over and over again. Aircraft grow the game and make it great (they're how the game came to be), anti-aircraft hurts the game. People who don't understand that don't understand WT.

"Drop of players" please provide an evidence backing it up. 

5 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Yeah...no, not likely. TO advocates have told us "TO is right around the corner!" for three years. That quip looks even more baseless than usual now. Interest in TO has collapsed and the game's direction has moved further and further away from a TO mode (even if you ignore Gaijin's outright denial of the idea).

Please stop lying about what gaijin has said about it :good:

 

Again, we had this conversation so please, just write a PM to me to not make this thread about the same all over again. Otherwise, You are just proving again what I have said at the beggining to be true.

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

Eh, as ULQ has insisted on continuing with the tangents I have rebutted them but have spoilered the non-TO bits. Hopefully he'll stop with the irrelevant chatter soon:

 

Spoiler

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

3 people is not an overwhelming number. I can find many people saying that the earth is flat and their number will be overwhelming compared to just You :good:

How am I lying? Have You provided video evidence? If I'm lying please cite it :good:. Besides me, no one have provided any evidence just their words, and people can write whatever they want.

 

I have already explained this many times over--you just don't understand how analyses like this work it seems.

 

You were the only person claiming to see what you did in a public thread and 4 people reported wholly different results with that RNG mechanic (as you'd expect with RNG mechanics). Put simply: you had mistaken an RNG mechanic as something consistent (it isn't). As you claimed your experience was the benchmark, any exception would break the rule you alleged--and 4 peoples' corroborating testimony obliterated it. Against that testimony, your videos were meaningless.

 

As for the second bit...I guess maybe you don't understand the RNG nature of certain things--it'd be best for you to refrain from talking if that is the case. You'll just confuse people with false things if you're talking about things you don't understand. This tangent of yours needs to stop anyway.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

What false and inaccurate statments? I would like to know them because for every statment I have provided real evidence, not only my words backing it up. I have shown everything I have been talking about and I was using unbiased evidence for it. Please cite for what I haven't provided any evidence so I can do it :good:

Of course it is me about bloating the thread after You have repeated Your own words over and over again like I have said in first response to You. I'm just correcting Your lies here.

 

A very large portion of your statements have been proven false and inaccurate; I have already detailed scads of examples before. (If you'd read what has been written before replying, you'd see all of this...but then we've been over that before too.) Many, many other people have called you out on those fake claims--not just myself.

 

Beyond that, the only further thing I must point out is I have never lied--that's just another dishonest, fake claim.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I have never misread, misinterpret evidence as facts.

All I have said was even backed up by stats that You were using, simple thing was that You couldn't understand that You need to know how gamemode works to use them. Numerous people were able to point it out to You while we were talking about it a couple pages ago, You can look it up and read again if You still have problems with it.

Stats You were using have shown that while comparing ground units vs aircrafts to aircrafts vs ground units, aircrafts had an advantage.

 

You've always misread and misinterpreted the statistics presented--whether legitimately or perhaps feigning a lack of understanding (that part is the only mystery of it).

 

In either case, my analysis was based upon and proven correct by what the statistics said; other users independently confirmed the data and also concurred with my judgments. Aircraft did (do) not have an advantage--that's just a belief of people who do not understand the statistics or why they are as they are. (I have tried to help explain them to you, but you've stubbornly refused so far.) My understanding of RB GFs is just fine and my ability to correctly read the data as I did went to show that. (I'm still willing to help you if you're willing to see sense with it.)

 

Do not fear: one day you'll understand the data and you'll agree with what I wrote. :good:

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Thanks again for proving, that You don't understand the game and what is being talked about here :good:

 

I understand the video just fine--it's just gameplay footage. The only way a person can get triggered by that is if they cannot handle competition...in which case their best option is probably just hiding in single player mode or custom battles.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

"Drop of players" please provide an evidence backing it up. 

 

As was discussed at the time, Steamcharts logged a drop of ~10% of the active player count at the time from 1.69 to 1.71. As Steam's playerbase is not unique, it's fair to surmise that trend was likely uniform or nearly so to WT players. That would mean a chunk of players bailed out at the patch change, just as I'd anticipated in summer 2017.

 

If you look back at the posts of the time or the charts, you'll see this. Go ahead and check it out.

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

And I have proven that I can use aircrafts far better than You called them being able to :lol2:

 

Ah yes, I remember the proof--I even have it nearby!

 

Spoiler

LkVDwwe.jpg

 

Hopefully the medal looks alright in ULQ settings. :lol2:

 

 

3 hours ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Please stop lying about what gaijin has said about it

 

I have not lied at all, I have just mentioned the facts of TO's status (paraphrased):

 

pa0zYVp.png

 

Gaijin said a permanent TO mode "makes no sense" to them. That sounds very much like a denial of TO mode, though advocates probably don't want to acknowledge that (much less accept it).

 

 

 

Seriously now: can you return to the topic of TO and keep on it? There's plenty to discuss with TO and you could be a contributor to the discussion if you stopped with all these needless tangents. Focus on TO here--it's what the thread is for.

 

Despite all of that, you didn't even acknowledge the imminent introduction of nukes in RB GFs and what that signals for TO--why? :dntknw:

Edited by warrior412
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Darkrocket14 said:

The video is also undeniable evidence of how a single kill allows you to spawn even the most potent CAS planes.

You need way more tthan one kill unless you have light tank with scout mechanic and you spot enough tanks.

 

11 hours ago, Darkrocket14 said:

The only problem is that there is no effective ground-based counter to aircraft. SPAA is a joke and both TS and even your stats prove that quite easily. Forcing people to also grind out the air tree for every nation they play tanks with, even if they play WT because of tanks is also not a fair solution. 

There is effective counter if you know how to play it.As something you should know the moment you installed the game that wt has a focus around combined mode and that includes ground vehicles and planes.You don't have to grind air tree but best counter vs the plane is another plane.Pretty simple case that any veteran player is aware of.If you don't want to play specific vehicle it's okay but if you get killed because you didn't play specific vehicle and you started complaining sorry but it's your own fault.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Not really, as the video doesn’t show anything supporting the claims of “CAS OP!” that people seeking refuge would like it to be. They might try twisting it as such, but that’s just an illusion of their own making.

 

The video shows Spookston outplaying and defeating some people—so? If his enemies didn’t want him to do that, they should ask players like that MiG-15 to do better and act to prevent him from succeeding. Being defeated does not necessitate a new mode.

 

If a hatred of competition is what drives some people to TO, soon we’ll need a modes without the Jumbo/IS-6/etc when they tire of those too...when would it stop?

You are either unable to see it or you most likely just refuse to see it. Certain CAS planes, in particular AGM armed ones don´t outplay their opposition, just like an Abrams at 5.7 wouldn´t "outplay" its opposition. 90% of all ground vehicles have no effective means of defending or even killing aircraft which are flown by just decent players. I play CAS myself and it is quite relaxing knowing that the vast majority of the enemy cannot harm you anymore while I can easily kill them. That´s just how it is. 

 

Let me just give you an example of what tanks are to planes. Imagine Gaijin added modern SAMs like the S-400. Any plane is vulnerable to them but they can only be destroyed if the enemy (SAM operator) is outright playing wrong. I don´t know what your definition of "competition" is but one side has all the advantages over another doesn´t seem fair to me. 

 

20 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Earned SP is earned SP. If he earned enogh SP to use an aircraft, it is his absolute right to use his SP however he pleases.

 

As it stands, you’re ignoring the massive disparity in SP costs and that makes complaints about aircraft costs a joke. When tanks are dirt cheap to spawn, there’s no room to say aircraft are too low.

The way SP are earned is something else to discuss as some exploits allow the earning of SP without exposing yourself to danger.

 

Tanks are cheaper than planes but tanks also aren´t virtually immune to 90% of what the enemy can field.

 

20 hours ago, warrior412 said:

My statement is based on understanding the game—if a team doesn’t protect a flank (like the sky—and they didn’t), then the enemy can use that against them (as he did).

 

Succeeding in the face of little opposition is neither noteworthy nor proof of anything. It was a montage—that’s about all that can be said of it.

Ironic how you always come with the argument "play x vehicle/nation before making a statement", for example when talking about the Jumbo. Also, your claim to understand something you haven´t even played already shows that you cannot be argued with. A person who continuously claims to be a "balance advocate" already shows that they most likely aren´t. Just like flatearthers saying that they are not crazy :lol2:

 

 

20 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Untrue—people just mistake unfiltered SPAA statistics for something else. Tanks kill SPAAs and many people use SPAAs as wannabe TDs—that skews the numbers.

Thunderskill doesn´t show a single SPAAG with a plane kill/death ratio of above 1. Most are sitting at an abysmal 0.3-0.5. Even tanks that aren´t suited for tank hunting (e.g. M163, M16) have these low stats so you are wrong. Also, what statistics do you have to back you of?

 

Though you do mention another crucial point of why CAS is a problem: nearly non-existing rewards for playing SPAA, even when played correctly. 

 

20 hours ago, warrior412 said:

As counters,

Except SPAA is only short-range self-defence which can be avoided and evaded easily. I successfully bombed ships in naval battles despite some of them having more AA than an entire team full of SPAAGs

 

20 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Nobody has said they must.

With SPAA being the way they are: unrewarding, boring to play and ineffective, they must

 

9 hours ago, croatiankiller said:

You need way more tthan one kill unless you have light tank with scout mechanic and you spot enough tanks.

Ah yes, because spotting from behind hardcover is such a difficult and dangerous task to do.

 

9 hours ago, croatiankiller said:

If you don't want to play specific vehicle it's okay but if you get killed because you didn't play specific vehicle and you started complaining sorry but it's your own fault.

Saying that for SPAA is fine but having to research an entire air tree which usually means spending hundreds of hours or a lot of money into it is not fair. You cannot blame people for having a life.

Edited by Darkrocket14
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:
Spoiler

 

You are either unable to see it or you most likely just refuse to see it. Certain CAS planes, in particular AGM armed ones don´t outplay their opposition, just like an Abrams at 5.7 wouldn´t "outplay" its opposition. 90% of all ground vehicles have no effective means of defending or even killing aircraft which are flown by just decent players. I play CAS myself and it is quite relaxing knowing that the bast majority of the enemy cannot harm you anymore while I can easily kill them. That´s just how it is. 

 

Let me just give you an example of what tanks are to planes. Imagine Gaijin added modern SAMs like the S-400. Any plane is vulnerable to them but they can only be destroyed if the enemy (SAM operator) is outright playing wrong. I don´t know what your definition of "competition" is but one side has all the advantages over another doesn´t seem fair to me. 

 

The way SP are earned is something else to discuss as some exploits allow the earning of SP without exposing yourself to danger.

 

Tanks are cheaper than planes but tanks also aren´t virtually immune to 90% of what the enemy can field.

 

Ironic how you always come with the argument "play x vehicle/nation before making a statement", for example when talking about the Jumbo. Also, your claim to understand something you haven´t even played already shows that you cannot be argued with. A person who continuously claims to be a "balance advocate" already shows that they most likely aren´t. Just like flatearthers saying that they are not crayz :lol2:

 

 

Thunderskill doesn´t show a single SPAAG with a plane kill/death ratio of above 1. Most are sitting at an abysmal 0.3-0.5. Even tanks that aren´t suited for tank hunting (e.g. M163, M16) have these low stats so you are wrong. Also, what statistics do you have to back you of?

 

Though you do mention another crucial point of why CAS is a problem: nearly non-existing rewards for playing SPAA, even when played correctly. 

 

Except SPAA is only short-range self-defence which can be avoided and evaded easily. I successfully bombed ships in naval battles despite some of them having more AA than an entire team full of SPAAGs

 

With SPAA being the way they are: unrewarding, boring to play and ineffective.

 

Ah yes, because spotting from behind hardcover is such a difficult and dangerous task to do.

 

Saying that for SPAA is fine but having to research an entire air tree which usually means spending hundreds of hours or a lot of money into it is not fair. You cannot blame people for having a life.

 

 

 

12/10, beautifuly said. Would upvote again

Share this post


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

Eh, as ULQ has insisted on continuing with the tangents I have rebutted them but have spoilered the non-TO bits. Hopefully he'll stop with the irrelevant chatter soon:

"Yeah...just as could have been expected, you have no counterarguments to the facts that I have laid out—you’re just denying things."

As from the beggining:

"And in other topics I have already explained that WT as a whole is by far only pro-aircraft, not anti aircraft. Please stop with such stupid claims and tries to derail the topic :good:. If you need some explenation how to use your planes well or how to use advantages that plane give, You over tanks You can contact me in PM's. "

But I'm the one bad here :016:

9 hours ago, warrior412 said:

I have not lied at all, I have just mentioned the facts of TO's status (paraphrased):

 

pa0zYVp.png

 

Gaijin said a permanent TO mode "makes no sense" to them. That sounds very much like a denial of TO mode, though advocates probably don't want to acknowledge that (much less accept it).

Read it again, and again, and again and maybe one time You will understand what they have said. "Makes no sense from our point of view" - should be a nice hint for You

9 hours ago, warrior412 said:

Seriously now: can you return to the topic of TO and keep on it? There's plenty to discuss with TO and you could be a contributor to the discussion if you stopped with all these needless tangents. Focus on TO here--it's what the thread is for.

 

Despite all of that, you didn't even acknowledge the imminent introduction of nukes in RB GFs and what that signals for TO--why? :dntknw:

I wanted to do it from my first replay to You :lol2:

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

Share this post


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

But I'm the one bad here :016:


You went off-topic with a nothingburger of a post and continually diverged on tangents, not I.

 

2 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

Read it again, and again, and again and maybe one time You will understand what they have said. "Makes no sense from our point of view" - should be a nice hint for You


You don’t see the relationship between a lack of interest from Gaijin and inaction from Gaijin? :facepalm:

 

3 minutes ago, ULQ_LOVER said:

I wanted to do it from my first replay to You :lol2:


Then stop with the tangents and do it—I asked you about the new changes coming to RB GFs that cast extreme doubt on TO but you’ve refused to say anything about them.

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

Ah yes, because spotting from behind hardcover is such a difficult and dangerous task to do.

It's not but it serves the purpose.

 

35 minutes ago, Darkrocket14 said:

Saying that for SPAA is fine but having to research an entire air tree which usually means spending hundreds of hours or a lot of money into it is not fair. You cannot blame people for having a life.

If you have a life as you say then the amount of time/money you invest in the game won't be big so taking that to the heart is pointless.Play what you like how you like and that's it.

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...