wished they didn’t count honestly. but yes, most of the time its a miss due to how tiny they are.
1 Like
this is true when youre balancing the game with statistics. but this is a videogame, and people play it for enjoyment.
it doesnt matter what “low” percentage of ground vehicles get killed by CAS.
those vehicles get killed by something they cant do anything against, and thats it
SPAA is only effective when youre the SPAA, and some tanks dont even have MGs (or have MGs that do nothing, dont have angles, etc)
there is practically no defense against CAS unless a teammate SPAA gets a lucky hit, which wont happen, and shouldnt be required to happen
drones are overpowered when youre doing the scouting with markers thing, so they should count as air kills until (if) that gets fixed
3 Likes
They even used to count towards the 10 kill wager.
That is the issue when someone is trying to prove that SPAA are actually effective.
Not to mention videos showcasing destroying prop-plane at +10 B.R. that is flying in a straight line.
1 Like
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LNYTIj6B5CU
Ofc, what is funny here ? SPAA not even notice, there is a plane xD This is how TOP CAS work :D
1 Like
“bUt NoBoDy PlAyS lIkE tHiS”, “ItS aCtUaLlY iMpRaCtIcAl”
1 Like
This does make me wonder about this statistic earlier:
@warrior412 earlier claimed that CAS only accounts for “10% of tank deaths.”
How is this statistic obtained given that official gaijin statistics conflate both Air RB/SB and Ground RB/SB statistics for a given plane?
If I had taken say my Mustang Mk Ia statistics for instance, one would see that I have killed a whopping 5 ground targets with it and died 41 times.
Did I get these statistics flying GSB or ASB?
Did I get those 5 ground target kills on player tanks or A.I targets in Sim EC?
Did I die so many times to so little ground targets because of SPAA being effective or because I was an idiot and got greedy and got third party’d while dogfighting a Bf109 on the enemy side of Ruhr EC?
Same notion to my Yak-9K stats in GRB/ARB - are my 37 deaths to 29 ground kills because I died to SPAA or because I took it to ARB and died because I suck at dealing with furballs?
From whence does @warrior412 claim that only ~10% of ground vehicle deaths can be attributed to air vehicles in GRB or GSB? We don’t have any easy to scrap statistics for such.
Even scraping my per session statistics on Statshark, the only thing I see is:
Zero information if I had had flown my Mustang Mk Ia in ASB or GSB.
From all we know of this data, the 4x20mm hispanos are terrible in GSB! CAS weak.
(Truth is: I’ve never flown my Mustang in GSB and only got ground kills with it is because I couldn’t find anyone to shoot, I had a booster activated so I went on shooting PzIVs and Ostwinds on EC Tunisia to give me some score while waiting for players to join the match.)
1 Like
The stats he is citing are from an old website that gathered data from users.
Same site showed that:
When it comes to ground vs air balance, ground units were destroyed by air 6219 times, while air units were destroyed by ground 3939 times, meaning that as devs confirmed in one of the news, the balance is shifted towards the air having the upper hand.
Not to mention the funny thing that according to this data ~24 % of air deaths was caused by “accident”.
And not to mention that data was gathered long before overpressure mechanic was added which again shifted the balance more toward the air.
So again, even the “historical data” showed that aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.
2 Likes
Still doesn’t answer the SPAA role in GRB anyway.
Tell me what can SPAA do beside shooting CAS. What else can they do if the enemy doesn’t have CAS or have actually decent CAS up.
Tell me in a situation where the game can be balanced by spawning in another tank to have a chance to win the game but there are CAS up. And you are in a SPAA , what else can you do ?
I listed every reason why SPAA are bad a lot of time , few of them were direct respond to you , you simply ignore other people and shove an entire 17 minutes of your gameplay down my throat with you killing mentally dented CAS player that can’t be bother to dodge the obvious SPAA. Or even scout the ground before going in.
You keep yapping as if I didn’t list my reason to why SPAA are bad and most of the time it is not worth spawning them in. You literally ignored the problem to yap some random stuff. I don’t care , one person actively being a knuckler dragger and decent at SPAA does not change the fact that CAS are still stronger than SPAA
Just because some dented CAS player give you easy kill and you repost it on here does not change anything.
The problem with CAS go way deeper into GRB than just “Spawn SPAA and get good bro , I can do it meaning you can”. SPAA gameplay are faulty and boring as hell. Not to mention the reward for taking down CAS.
Then address all of these Yuuki, if not next time if you see me. Just ignore me , your dented spot is caving in everytime you speak
3 Likes
Unsuprisingly, you’re not calculating aircraft effectiveness correctly because you’re not counting half of their deaths…which is exaggerating their results wildly.
7,351 aircraft were lost to destroy 6,219 ground units (and some fraction of the aircraft killed). Aircraft had (at best) around a 1:1 exchange ratio and perhaps not even that. If we count the 2,361 bail outs/crashes recorded, the exchange rate drops even further.
That number is not terribly surprising or wild, as most normal games’ results even today showcase.
Players crash or leave their aircraft often, because aircraft are harsher on the controls than tanks (aircraft don’t just run into buildings or obstacles and stop like tanks do), aircraft deal with compression and structural failure (tanks do not) and aircraft do not enjoy tanks’ ability to heal from any non-fatal damage anywhere with FPE and parts unlocked (aircraft must return to base). If you don’t think these things will result in a substantial reading, you don’t understand the data, game or both.
Yeah…it’s doubtful that’s had any substantial effect on the data. Aircraft are more likely to get killed by their own bomb blasts than tanks a few lengths away from them nowadays. That’s why you have to set delay fuses–aircraft face more of a threat from overpressure than ground vehicles do.
Incorrect…just as you misread the data years ago, you have again.
The biggest item that table validates is the reality that tanks have pretty much always accounted for 10x as many tank kills as aircraft do and that this has never really changed, despite all of the CAS hype.
Gaijin does balance the game by statistics (which does have its flaws)…and, generally speaking, players do have some means to counteract the enemy, be it a ground unit or aircraft.
As defeats go, few people are happy to see them happy or experience them…but that’s just how it is. When you’re about 7-12x more likely to be killed by a tank than an aircraft, that’s where the real threats are coming from. (In WT, you can often get away with flat out ignoring the skies in favor of focusing on ground threats based on this probability.)
While I’d say the ability for SPAAs, MGs and other measures to work is higher than you suggest, it really only exemplifies the importance (but not requirement) of a well-rounded team.
Beyond that, there’s always the Fighters First concept to level the playing field by providing even more defensive options.
Manual counting nowadays (@PointyPuffin did some last year at scale too) and historical data where the data filtration was decent.
Beyond that, you are correct–data filtration is lackluster.
As I have said:
That is just what stats are showing.
Sorry but again, You are using wrong numbers as I’m comparing ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.
Maybe for You, I have much different experience so if You have any data to back up what You are saying, feel free to show it!
Of course it has as anyone playing the game understand the difference when You can destroy an open-top by simply aiming the bomb/rocket near it and when You can’t.
Please tell me from where You gather data, because as I have shown:
Ground units died to the air: 6219 times
Air units died to the ground: 3939 times
In simple terms 6219 > 3939
Meaning that much more deaths was caused by air when it comes to the comparison than other way around.
If You fail to read the data shown or still try to use air to air deaths, then should we count ground to ground deaths too?
But again no one talks about how mode is made because this is why only around 10% of the deaths of all ground units historically was caused by the air.
We are comparing ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air or ground vs ground ones. If You want to discuss how mode is made, then that is not a good place for it.
3 Likes
The statistics show aircraft results as 7,251 aircraft lost for 6,219 ground units killed.
In a strict reading of the results (presuming that all aircraft were intending to hit GFs as some claim–which is a reach), that’d mean aircraft have a negative exchange rate.
You must consider all causes of deaths to assess effectiveness, not just your chosen ones.
I pretty much never leave my aircraft (except, rarely, at the base) and seldom crash (unless it’s an unserious night).
As I stated…I was referring to matches as a whole considering other players’ results. You need to read the whole post before replying…you missed that part.
Open tops are relatively few compared to armored vehicles, whereas the effect of bomb blasts is pretty much universal to aircraft (their type doesn’t matter, only their position does).
All of the data I cited came from that same table and is plainly visible. If you do not comprehend what was said with the figures that were plainly provided by that table and commentated on by myself…it cannot be helped.
You failed to read the data, I dealt with it just fine. (If you need assistance with it, contact me via PM…don’t bloat the thread.)
Incorrect, particularly given how the hype portrays matters. If the hype was correct (or even reasonable), aircraft should account for a far greater percentage of tank deaths than 1/10th of what other GFs account for.
That the data historically and now manually collected and observed doesn’t reflect anything close to what the hype portends (below the mess of 9.0+) signals CAS hype has always been exaggerated. (Based on the 2017 data about 5.7 during all of
The statistics show that 3939 aircrafts were lost to ground units while 6219 ground units were lost to the air.
Meaning that overall aircrafts destroy more ground units than other way around.
This is what I’m saying from the beggining.
When talking about effectivness against certain type, You don’t count other types in, that is just misleading, otherwise we would need to count ground vs ground stats too.
So You should have something to back it up, still waiting!
Considering most of SPAA at lower B.R. are open-top that makes a huge difference.
The only one that failed something, is the one not being able to understand that we are talking about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, not air vs air ones.
You can’t decide if an air unit is effective agains the ground by how it deals with the air. Otherwise spitfires would be the best planes around.
Sorry but I know what I’m discussing.
If You are going to still argue that the number 3939 is bigger than 6219, or that air vs air stats are being discussed, there is no point in further replying. I hope @Forum Moderators are going to clean the topic further on if the replies are going to be just in order to bloat and destroy the topic.
Data is visible for everyone
So anyone wanting to see what historical data showed about ground vs air to air vs ground stats, can see it.
6 Likes
Incorrect…your analysis is flawed because you’re ignoring half of aircrafts’ operational realities and that inhibits assessing their yield rates.
You don’t have to count ground-ground stats when you’re looking at how aircraft fare…
I’ve already posted it–you need to reread. I will not bloat the thread with repetition because of your mistakes.
SPAA =/= all ground units.
As was the case years ago, you don’t understand the data and discussion.
I will reply as I please–I’m not the one posting confused replies and mistaken perceptions due to bad readings.
They can see it–and they’ll see what I said is entirely valid. You would too if you read it properly.
If you’re counting accidents,
Do you have any way to differentiate ASB & GSB, ARB & GRB?
Do you also have a way to differentiate dying to airfield AAA? Because I swear, that’s the worst part of trying to fly in GRB the rare times I thought to try and fly CAP. I dive on CAS, shoot them down and move to extend. After a mere 5-7 kilometers of shallow climb at ~6-8 m/s at 600 km/h, my plane turns yellow or dead because some amazingly smart person decided to put an airfield right next to the battlefield.
Moving those stupid airfields back some 20 km even at prop tiers would solve a significant amount of my complaints voiced earlier in the thread, alongside forcing airfield spawn. 20 km distance means a ~4 minute time to arrive at the battlefield at a leisurely 300 km/h constant IAS climb you’d expect in most 3.0+ aircraft. Heavy/Strategic bombers get to keep their high altitude spawn, but they still need to make the distance.
Also regarding bombs,
I fail to see how those would affect aircraft other than when you dive on a bomber and they carpetbomb the ground beneath them and hit you through splash damage. With a bomb releaes altitude around 500-900 meters, you shouldn’t be anywhere near your own bomb’s splash radius.
1 Like
If I’m reading this data correctly,
In the end I was correct that Tanks/SPAA die to CAS 5% to 20% of the time and the remaining 80% to 95% tanks dies from tanks. They fluctuate over time.
As for that difference on 6,212 and 3,939, makes sense since a lot of players struggle shooting them down.
1 Like
It is very old data so I wouldn’t take it for granted, but data shows just how GF RBs mode works as in order to spawn in a plane You first have to die in ground unit.
And many times don’t have a chance to do so, like nashorn against an air unit that doesn’t attack him from an angle he can aim at.
5 Likes
i belive u dont understand what are you saing…
oO
If you try to land on tank roof, yeah.
No, you started summing selected columns because it fits better to support your arguments. And the statistics are written out quite clearly.
Only one of your calculations is correct, that is 7,351 planes were lost.
yeah, this discussion is definitely like a conversation between a deaf and a mute.
I have the impression that the problem that has been completely ignored is that as subsequent “eras” were introduced, the CAS problem evolved. Currently, the biggest problem is at the “top” - where one Su-30/34 changes everything. And there is no effective counter-weapon against it, to tell the truth.
4 Likes
You cant focus on ground threats when you got wiped by an orbital strike.
Nor can you do anything to prevent it.
Ground vehicles cant fight against CAS and whether there is a SPAA is not relevant