It says PvP in every single realistic air battle
2 Likes
and what? now im supposed to just look at strike aircraft i own in hangar?
will you tell me to play game modes with attention span of a tiktok user or jelly wobble physics? maybe that i should spend 2 years grinding tanks so i can play one aircraft?
this my man is toxic, not seeking cover on airfield
No, even wt wiki says that Air RB has different objectives:
Summary
Realistic Battles
Aviation:
Realistic mode is designed for more experienced players. More realistic damage models, flight models, and physics makes gameplay less forgiving, and aircraft fly much more similarly to their historical counterparts, with their strengths and weaknesses more apparent than in Arcade mode. Also, once all ammunition and ordnance are expended, players will have to return to their airfield to reload, and there is no ‘leading marker’ to assist with aiming. In this mode, unlike Arcade, teams often feature aircraft from specific nations, making gameplay more accurately reflect historical encounters such as the Battle of Stalingrad, fought between the USSR and Germany, or the Battle of Midway, fought between the Japanese Empire and the US. These historical scenarios will all have different objectives similar to the battles they represent, such as destroying a German tank advance at Kursk or repelling a Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor.
…and nothing about Air RB being a PvP mode only. Funnily enough a return to the airfield is mentioned in wt wiki.
But the fellow player is not wrong regarding his general view on things - above certain BRs playing strike aircraft makes no sense as every fighter can fulfil the same tasks and can contribute to the efforts of his team to win the match by killing other fighters; a strike aircraft like the discussed A-10 is simple not capable of making a significant impact in a mode being mostly decided by PvP actions - and not by playing PvE in a mode that is at the end of the day de facto a TDM mode…
1 Like
Wiki is made by players.
On the sites owned by gaijin - making them accountable for the content…
1 Like
I dont know from where are you coming with this.
Im just saying that in a gamemode focused on facing other players in planes, the planes that are designed to destroy other planes will always render useless planes designed to destroy ground targets or drop bombs.
This will always be the case no matter what you do.
Also I’m the toxic guy here who drops clown emojis?
2 Likes
This forum is also owned by gaijin, but not what players type.
The game and the web says PvP, wiki matters nothing in comparation.
this is where my friend.
And im not saying strike aircraft need a new game mode, no no, what im saying is that fighters merely win air superiority, while the victory conditions should be focused on the tickets, and with victory conditions no longer affecting the amount of players alive on each team, there is absolutely no reason to fly around enemy airfield.
as for either team having 0 players - it wouldnt hurt to have a respawn mechanic and maybe somewhat bigger maps with more airfields
The wiki on the A7M2 states that the Wyvern is a super/turbocharged high altitude plane.
Stuff written on the wiki can just simply not match the truth of the game. Again, the wiki is written by players and entirely rests on the interpretation of players.
In this specific case, someone likely read that the Wyvern has a “turboprop” engine and confused it with it having a “turbocharger” with good high altitude performance, despite the fact that the Wyvern is strongest the lower you go.
4 Likes
A reference page like wiki is an extension of the official web site - clearly referenced by the main page:
You can find the list of all currently available vehicles at wiki-page: wiki.warthunder.com
and therefore of course sanctioned and approved officially. So the content is therefore to be seen as “official”.
Mentioning the content of a forum (in which individuals present their own opinions) or the distinction PvP vs PvE in an internal screen like this:
is nonsense as PvP in this context simply says: Players fight Players in total opposition to game modes like air assault or helicopter PvE in which the “PvE” is used to say: You won’t fight players.
The main purpose of a forum is besides getting help/support also the exchange with others based on own opinions. So it is logical that forum posts by players are no “official” gaijin statements.
The difference to wt wiki is obvious so your reply is simply distracting from the fact that we talk about two different things:
- How wt describes the ways of how the game can be played
- How wt is actually played
And as i share your view on the usefulness of A-10s - i simply don’t understand why you try to create conflicts with actually useless examples regarding point #1 if we have a common understanding about the decisive point #2.
Although i really appreciate your replies in general - imho your example simply proves that there is a complete absence of any kind of quality controls within gaijin and another confirmation that the low budget approach of gaijin (using volunteers/players for actually necessary/important functions) is not really showing satisfactory results.
I mean this discussion is purely academic, but in case we talk about a trial based on Comsumer Protection Laws the statements within wt homepage and links from them like in this case wt wiki - gaijin is fully reliable for the content if they don’t add disclaimers. So the principle of Dictum et promissum or material statement will be decisive in any case - if they describe the product wrong or promise facts that the product cannot fulfil - they will lose.
I remember a car brochure 25 years ago - advertising a Chrysler minivan able to carry a specific Harley D.- and the bike was modified to fit in without a disclaimer…
In any case - have a good one!
1 Like
If the forward Af was capture capable and thus turned off the AAA at the main AF, that would solve a problem of single player holding the winning team till the timer or tickets run out. Also while a plane is capturing the forward af it could allow the defenders to prevent said capture
1 Like
by aiding ground troops?
By landing on it, i mentioned that while capturing the defender as the opportunity to leave the AAA bubble and defend
Why not make a match 20v20 and haved 4 players on each tieam with SPAA for free RP, im sure gaijin could find a way for free to play to join in, they could even shot down AF campers
1 Like
ok fair, but it should take at least 30 seconds to cap it
after 663 messages, what is the Gaijin position about the suggestions? What is being in consideration, what are the plans about the AAA RB question?
Even if you were gaijin - the topic is far more complex than you might guess and it is still unclear what the real question is and which kind of players are affected at different BRs with which effects.
As long as af aaa is almost 100% deadly at prop BRs and described mostly as useless at higher jet BRs it simply depends on your pov/BR.
As a prop player i am happy with the removal of af aaa on forward airfields, so it seems like the thread is not completely useless.
If you are interested to get more results from them you might consider to implement a detailed poll covering all aspects. In case you want to go this path you might find some hints what you should include:
I gave up to create this poll as there were no real guides like “how to create polls with multiple questions” available, but in case you are eager to get answers to your questions from gaijin i see no real alternatives.
1 Like
Forward or back airstrip, a plane that’s stationed there for refueling / rearming / repairs has no means to defend itself, so it shouldn’t be left at the mercy of enemy aircraft. This game should let fighters fight and civilians safe (a landed plane is, by any definition, a civilian).
Pretty hilarious. So basically by this logic if I f.e. play 6.3 jet going 750 at sea level, someone manages to damage me via some miracle, then I can just dive awya to the AF and repair with absolute impunity, then go back to clobbering everyone? Same with BI, Wyvern and every other broken plane.
3 Likes