Think what you will and see the world through your own lens I really don’t care.
I like this chart, AA kills about 1.5x CAS kills, CAP is even less effective, and ground on ground goes just fine as the ground mains like
Nah, I was raised by a single mum, I revel in this sort of pettiness. It’s like I was made for this.
1 Like
Lol, pressing Gaijin adding TO mode like waiting another 5 year before they add it to keep the players happy.
1 Like
Couldn’t careless what that guy think or say since he agreed or disagree make zero impact for the outcome. Like why would anybody care for someone so unimportant that his pet cat unfollowed him on Instagram?
2 Likes
Spoiler
I did not characterize or frame my analysis in the manner you suggest…I discussed the number of ground units destroyed by aircraft and the number of aircraft lost to all causes to achieve that tally.
When you are analyzing the exchange rate (kills versus losses) of aircraft and enemy ground units, you must factor in all of what killed the aircraft or you’ll have a botched comparison.
Actually, the main issue others seem to have with my posts is their very advanced nature…a lot of people here seem to be struggling to keep up. To your question, we cannot look at SPAAs’ effectiveness (the table doesn’t class SPAAs on their own).
The nearest analysis we can do is look at what all ground units managed. Even so, we can discuss it if you’d like:
Spoiler
Aircraft deaths to ground units (no type specified): 3,939 aircraft killed
Ground unit deaths to aircraft: ----------------------------> 6,219 ground units killed
By these numbers, the kill share of ground units versus aircraft is about 63% of the value of the kill share of aircraft versus ground units. More directly, the tally is ~10 ground units lost to aircraft for every 6 aircraft lost to ground fire.
Another important aspect that weighs in on this effectiveness analysis is SP costs; these vary widely, but GFs (even respawns) cost considerably less than aircraft.
Because the table does not specify the nature of the ground units, we must consider all types and their full range (which varies by match BR) because the reality of the data is that it could be attributed to any mix of them:
Spoiler
Ground unit costs:
- SPAA: 70-110 SP
- Heavy/Medium/Light Tank: 100-160 SP
- SPG: 90 to 130 SP
Aircraft costs:
- Aircraft (clean fighter without bombs/rockets/AP ammo): 480+ SP
- Aircraft (with bombs/rockets/AP ammo): >480 SP
Ground units require only about 15% to 33% of the SP costs of even the cheapest aircraft (nevermind more expensive aircraft) but yield about two-thirds the kill share of aircraft. Accruing 63% of the kill share for 15-33% of the cost is a marked advantage for cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, despite their lower costs, ground units possess the main means of influencing the match while aircraft lack this (capture point interaction).
Based upon this, we can see that a team could potentially lose multiple ground vehicles in the pursuit of destroying a single aircraft and emerge with the advantage as long as the aircraft ends up killed.
Back in 2017 (that data table is circa 2017), myself and numerous took advantage of the above realities…
Spoiler
…it was a strategy to coax the enemy team into aircraft…then gun them down with SPAAs and aircraft. By killing players in aircraft rapidly, they would have limited SP to respawn with and it’d often force them out of the match.
The above was prior to the 2018 SP costs changes, which have damped the effect of this strategy by allowing cheaper GF respawns…but someone like @JuicyKuuuuki really has the potential to carve up enemy teams’ SP even today.
As in the other analysis, ground units’ results are quite respectable.
I wanted to know what this was about but it goes so far back I gave up.
At the moment we have some vehicles that can change the whole outcome of the game and be spawned a few moments after game starts:
Spoiler
Not to mention the big bombs, that don’t even have to be aimed at specific vehicles but rather general area and dropped outside of SPAA effective range:
Spoiler
All done in Ground RB.
4 Likes
Let me just add something here.
Some people simply refuse to be wrong, they’re not even discussing the idea anymore, they’re just finding ways to avoid admitting being wrong. I don’t even know which one of you I’d agree with or which one is factually right but at this point either one or both of you are arguing all day long just REFUSING to be wrong, quit typing and go touch some grass lmao
1 Like
Indeed–I just explained another set of them right here.
What I stated previously has again been validated, as the facts speak for themselves. :)
Continually making fake, nonsensical claims only destroys your own credibility…it doesn’t do any damage to others.
People who make up fake claims can never be trusted to do a serious and sober analysis of data (as I just did above) and be believed. Integrity matters…so don’t sell it out for cheap nonsense like fake claims.
As I said, it seems like TO advocacy has basically died off.
Mechanically, the trigger queue idea seems like the best angle to work for TO while the idea of ‘TO rallies’ in custom battles appear to be a nice idea to demonstrate interest in the concept as well as perform very basic (and informal) dry runs of the idea.
However, none of that goes anywhere if nobody lobbies for it…so TO faces a very uncertain future.
I dunno man, using data from 2017 is misleading at best.
The game, vehicles, damage system and weapons have changed significantly since then. It’s most certainly not proven and validated.
I was not the person who put forward that 2017 data sheet for discussion here, nor did I claim it to be a definitive reflection of current realities (at best, there are perhaps similarities).
I was responding to others and commentating on the table, not trying to hold it as gospel about the present.
Perhaps above 8.X in 9.X+…I would agree with that. Below 9.X, I’d have to say generally no. Aside from radar SPAAs and helicopters, little has fundamentally changed.
To validation…I refer to this post with its detailed analysis (the second I’ve done on the 2017 data sheet in recent days).
1 Like
That’s a lot of words to say that CAS absolutely dominates ground. Again, bare statistics shows that planes beats ground. Tanks costing less (and SPAAs moreso) does not counter CAS play.
1 Like
cough hull break cough
There have been significant changes to how damage is applied via bombs. It’s been changed multiple times in fact. Hell, overpressure has been re-worked since then as well.
The changes since 2017 are so significant as to render any attempted analysis of data from then meaningless. Then attemping to apply the results of that to the current situation is effectively useless.
Thoughtful, thorough analyses do indeed feature a lot of commentary and explanation…that’s par for the course.
Regarding that 2017 table: more aircraft are lost to enemy fire than tanks to enemy aircraft…at the same time, GFs killed ~2 aircraft for every 3 GFs killed by aircraft.
Neither of those figures portrays domination…particularly when the matters of cost effectiveness (with SP) and influence (capture zone interaction) are considered.
There is simply nothing about this data suggesting the sort of ‘absolute dominance’ that you suggest and I say that as someone who faced what was supposedly ‘the worst’ of it at the time by playing 4.X-5.X Germany (the natural habitat of F6Fs, P-47s, Typhoons, etc.) around when that table was fresh.
You’re entitled to your own opinion and perception about what the percentages mean…but, by the same token, I’d still say the 10x greater likelihood of dying to another tank is a bigger worry for your tank.
When I spoke about the 2017 data, it was referred to as historical data and discussed in its own context (not pertaining to nowadays).
While I see plenty of parallels, including similar results and trends personally, I do not claim that the 2017 data represents today’s realities as-is.
1 Like
Well in my opinion CAS should cost like double its current SPs. Spawning as light tank, rushing a point, getting some scouts or easy kill/assist is more than enough to spawn in a fully loaded plane within 2 minutes and that has been a problem for YEARS now.
I do think players should be able to spawn as planes in ground game modes, but it shouldn’t be RIDICULOUSLY easy
7 Likes
Also spawn on runway, and the runway should be ~20km away at prop tiers above 3.0 (i.e: aircraft that can easily do a 300 kph IAS climb), and even more at jet tiers with their afterburners and trans/supersonic performance.
20 km is not a long distance for a prop plane. Even zeros and the Re2001 cn can hit 450 km/h once at cruising altitude of 2.5-3.5 km. American planes casually hit 500-600 even fully laden. Yaks are incredibly fast as well.
And 20 km remains a very manageable distance even while damaged except for total engine failure at low altitude.
As an aside, this would benefit CAP because now you can’t run and hide under automatic A.I hitscan death bubbles after dropping your bombs nearly as easily.
4 Likes
And some other vehicles only to waste your 300, 600 or 800 sp. Thought it’s about the whole category instead of specific planes.
Playing with a friend
“Just ate a missile”
“same”
“what was it?”
“dude in space”
“Damn wish there was a tank only mode”
“Same literally no one can touch that guy”
“sigh back to hangar?”
“Yeah screw this”
Rinse and repeat
Gib tank only
5 Likes
For the love of god people just stop engaging with warrior 412 and the issue will disappear. Stop feeding his ego and taking the bait. If you keep responding he will keep at it.
Just ignore him, like he isn’t even here and the lack of attention will dissuade him from the rambling.
2 Likes