Vehicles like Otomatic and Gepard have limited amount of APDSFS IRL, in meaning that they cant carry/load more than amount they re given in game.
More than this, IIRC Otomatic should be using clip for its APDSFS, meaning it can fire them for certain amount of time until it goes zero, crew have to reload the same clip they used for APDSFS, because IIRC crew gets just one.
I have never seen anything say or mention 2S38 has them limited.
Otomatic is a proper SPAA with actual radar after all and HSTV-L has around better protection (sloped armour prone to ricocheting off rounds, its much faster in both forward and reverse, has better Hp/t ratio, better depression and turret rotation speed.
Its not just depression.
Not saying 2S38 should be 10.0. Just comparing it to others, it has no reason to have its APDSFS limited (or removed because that would only mean it gets lower BR) IMO in comparision to Begleitpanzer 57 (which might get its APDSFS, making it bigger BR), all the CV9040s, Otomatic and HSTV-L it doesnt outshine each one.
I’m not saying that it should remain 10.0, the guy i replied thought it was somehow a 9.0 max with 0 logic put into it so i simply explained why it didn’t make sense
The fact of the matter is, nobody goes back to Arcade once the familiarize themselves with RB. AB is for people who are familiarizing themselves with War Thunder. The amount of times I encountered a player just starting out in War Thunder is starting in AB, thus I don’t expect them to have a good “Winrate”. And once they make the transition to RB they don’t really go back, thus their “winrate” will remain the same for a century.
Not only that Winrate doesn’t constitute whether they are a good player or not; winrate is more based on teamwork and communications. Regardless, AB is technically an easier mode, it’s evident due to the influx of newer players starting with AB over RB.
The average win rate in AB is exactly the same as the average winrate in RB: 50%. So this doesn’t really make any sense. AB players do not have lower win rates.
nobody goes back to Arcade once the familiarize themselves with RB.
Where on earth did you get that from? I did. Tried out RB, play it occasionally, hated it (mostly due to CAS being much stronger which is just objectively bad game design), and play mostly arcade again. I’m not sure what on earth possible data you think you’re referring to to say how often that does or doesn’t happen.
Not only that Winrate doesn’t constitute whether they are a good player or not; winrate is more based on teamwork and communications.
The objective of the game is to win. Winning more by definition means you’re a better player. No argument required, again… by definition.
Also, just like the other guy, you personally have a 5% lower win rate in arcade than realistic. I’m not trying to shame anyone’s statistics, but I am shaming the hypocrisy of the fact that every single time someone says that arcade is easier than realistic, they are always worse at arcade than realistic.
The basic concept of arguing that something is way easier when you yourself aren’t even better at it is pretty ridiculous.
Either:
A) It’s harder for you than realistic, or
B) You haven’t played it since you were a noob, which means you have no idea whether you would do well in it or not now or what it’s like as a player who actually knows the game.
Neither option leads to having any valid reason to think arcade is easier. Neither counterevidence nor ignorance is support for a position.
A) Winrate still doesn’t constitute you being a good player, you could be absolutely terrible yet carried by teammates or squadmates, win rate means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of skill rating. You could be at the top of your team, yet your entire team is dead, is that really your fault? Therefore, winning doesn’t define you as a better player, it’s a team based game, the objective is YOU and YOUR TEAM winning.
B) I never said Arcade is worse than Realistic, I said it’s “easier” like it’s playing World of Tanks or Call of Duty. Once you start playing arcade, you already will know what to do, I’m not saying it doesn’t take skill to be good at arcade; I’m saying it doesn’t take long for someone to learn the basics of arcade. There’s a difference between being good at arcade, and learning the basics of arcade.
C) CAS is well balanced if you or your team has a decent player at AA, plus Gaijin purposely did this so it gives players an incentive to actually try grinding out their air tech tree; so players can actually diversify. I didn’t really like air at first, but after a while, it’s nice to be excited for either trees receiving something new.
There is no mechanism by which you can consistently HAPPEN to get better teams than other people do over and over just by luck. The average player will thus have 50% win rate on the dot. And since winning is again by definition the objective of the game, winrate absolutely directly reflects player skill, 1:1 perfectly.
The only exception is if you’ve only ever played like literally 12 matches ever and don’t have enough data yet to average out to the actual answer accurately. That’s it.
B) I never said Arcade is worse than Realistic, I said it’s “easier”
Read (B) again, it was already replying to the claim of “easier” not “worse”
C) CAS is well balanced if you or your team has a decent player at AA
Which is not in your control, unless you play only SPAAs 100% of the time. So your options are:
Never get to experience 90% of the game’s content in order to do well (everything other than SPAAs), which is bad design, or
Don’t play SPAAs 100% of the time, but then consistently die to things outside your agency or control, which is bad design.
Bad design either way. Perhaps if you could hop into an SPAA briefly as a minigame (similar to planes in Ground AB but in reverse), then go back to your actual tank, you’d have a point, but you can’t.
No I am saying it’s easier, I’m not wrong, it is easier to grasp Arcade than Realistic. Do you really need me to point out the obvious mechanics that make Arcade easier than Realistic? And why do you keep bringing up our win rate (in your case skill) in Arcade? I’m not saying it’s easy to be insanely good at Arcade, I’m saying it’s easier to grasp which in turn means Arcade is an overall easier gamemode to play.
Once again, winning doesn’t directly reflects a player skill, sure it’s an factor, but it’s not a good 100% representation of a player’s skill. There are guarantee other factors which comes into play when determining a player’s skill. Player effectiveness is what you’re most likely thinking about rather than an players ability to PVP, but however that is also affected by other factors other than just win rate.
And, I am not going to have this CAS argument here because are both clearly biased against one another on this topic due to past experiences.
I’m not sure why you think ground AB is “easier to grasp” than ground RB in the first place
More importantly, it doesn’t matter, because “Easier to grasp” =/= “Easier”
Chess is much easier to grasp than even War Thunder arcade is, there’s like 1/10th as many rules and mechanisms in chess. So by your logic, chess is a SUPER easy game, right?
Go is even simpler in mechanisms. So even easier still?
The 100 meter dash is even simpler than Go in mechanisms. So sprinting is an incredibly easy sport, right?
“Easy to grasp” also applies to your enemies on the other team, so it’s just as much of a disadvantage to you as an advantage, and simply cancels out to nothing on average in terms of how easy it is to win or do well (whether than be win rate, KD, points, or whatever)
Once again, winning doesn’t directly reflects a player skill
Yes it does, you’ve literally given zero other explanations for what can actually result in a high win rate. “Being carried” is not an example, since there is no way to be carried yourself more than other players are long term, so merely being carried with no abnormal skill cancels out to 50% over time.
No, regardless you show no proof whatsoever of your theory where having a high win rate means being a better player. Not only that you completely disregard what I said about there being multiple factors.
With your logic, you must be a “god” at AB at crushing new players at lower tier, as you clearly don’t seem to have any motivation to progress. Not only that technically your “Achilles” is your most effective vehicle yet with your 100% win rate with 1 kill and 0 deaths. Clearly, you should be recognized for being the BEST player in all of War Thunder Arcade because there cannot be any other factors.
Not like I could play 1000s of hours in reserve to achieve a high win rate because there can be no other factors affecting a player’s skill.
Anyways back on track here, win rate is ONE factor in determining a player being good or not. Player placement on the TEAM is another one, kills per life, etc. All these CONTRIBUTE to a player’s skill, literally think about it.
I don’t see you even doing remotely decent in GRB, have you ever wondered maybe you’re biased towards GRB? There is a DIFFERENCE between shooting a plane down in AB and RB, one has a lead indicator and has the ability to track the plane, the other one DOESN’T?!? Does that not mean AB is easier?!?! CLEARLY AB has been SIMPLIFIED for players, maybe you still don’t see this.
Don’t even just start blaming CAS directly if you are performing so poorly, I have yet to see more than two or more vehicles with positive KD on RB.
There’s a REASON why RB has better multipliers, because it’s harder to grasp and slower. Where as AB is fast pace and easier to grasp. Don’t even let me get started with SB if you wanna keep going down the gamemodes. Therefore in this instance “EASIER TO GRASP” means it’s EASIER. In matter a fact, you never gave one reason why it’s on equal footing or even harder.
It’s literally evident using your very own account as proof why RB is harder than AB, even though I don’t touch AB at all, I at least have more than two vehicles that are positive in KD.
There is no such thing as “proof” of something that is true by definition. Being a good player at a game fundamentally means winning at it a lot. That’s just what the words mean. There is nothing to “prove” lol.
A long series of ad hominem arguments and insults
Irrelevant drivel. Skip!
Not only that technically your “Achilles” is your most effective vehicle yet with your 100% win rate with 1 kill and 0 deaths.
I already said awhile back (that you didn’t bother to read) that “not enough data yet” is the only one possible exception for win rate not being an accurate measure of skill. Yes, already agreed. No other exceptions, though.
Player placement on the TEAM is another one
Being high on your team is completely irrelevant to skill IF you didn’t do things to get those points that actually helped your team win.
And if you did do things to help your team win while getting those points, then a much better way to measure that PORTION of it that was relevant to winning is… simply using win rate.
So this adds nothing meaningful.
kills per life
Same as above. IF the kills didn’t help the team actually win (e.g. killing people way off in the corner while an enemy cap was undefended and the tickets ran down), then it’s irrelevant. And IF it did help win, then simply looking at win rate is more accurate and already takes this into account. So, this is redundant.
“Being a good player at a game fundamentally means winning at it a lot”. No, not necessarily. There is lots to “prove”, for instance majority of your games are rank 3 and below, the majority of the players at those ranks are new players. So does killing a bunch of new players which in turn allows you to get to objective easier means you’re a good player at a game fundamentally?
Should it not be winning against players with similar amounts of experience?
Win rate can easily be spoofed with seal clubbing which fundamentally lays the biggest error when using win rate to define someone. Same could be said about kills and etc.
Instead, you should be looking more in-depth into an account, taking the types of vehicle, rank, etc. should define a good player rather win rate. Win rate is NOT the only statistic that defines whether a player is good or not, as said previously there are OTHER factors comes into play.
The majority of people at rank 3 are like level 50+.
Given the huge numbers of wallet based squadron and premiums often making up almost entire team rosters at higher BRs, in fact, I’m not even sure that the average level of players at 10.0 is any higher than the average level of players at like 4.3.
Rank 1 is seal clubbing, that’s about it. Sure if someone has a huge win rate at rank 1 and terrible at rank 3 or 4, then they aren’t good. I am not sure I’ve ever met someone like that before though. Can you give any example of such a person? People who can get 16 kills and 4 caps at rank 1 and carry the whole team can pretty much also always do way above average at rank 4. So this is a pretty silly and pointless nitpick.
Ok? Good for you…? Did you forget the entire topic of the conversation by now, lol? You seem to frequently get sidetracked from the thread’s topic to random irrelevant dick measuring that nobody asked for, for some reason.
Isn’t that you? You started this by complaining about other people saying “AB being easier than RB”. You started this sidetrack in this thread’s topic.
You started this by complaining about other people saying “AB being easier than RB”.
Right, so I was complaining AGAINST dick swinging… I have said quite clearly this whole time that crew skills training rate should be exactly equal for everyone in all modes. And that nobody is any better or worse for simply liking a mode (that includes myself)
The only time I brought up actual stat cards at any point was to point out that people personally worse at AB than RB saying AB is easier, are making a dumb argument. But that doesn’t even relate to them being good or bad. It’s equally dumb if they have 70% in AB and 73% in RB, as it is if they have 41% in AB and 44% in RB. Just being relatively worse in a mode, yet saying it’s easier, is absurd.