Oh God, what have you done? He’s now going to write a book on how you’re wrong because they should’ve read his intentions.
1 Like
He should write a book and win “International Booker Prize” 2035 after TO mode become part in WT.
1 Like
It would be dumb from a balance perspective if one SPAA could keep the skies completely clear.
The presence of these guys are actually good because they can be on enemy team, so we get free foods to fill our cheap dopamine. CAS on the other hand… all taking from us and not giving anything back. Thank you for saving me by dropping a bomb on the enemy tank that almost killed me, not really :p
1 Like
Nope, not at all.
There is no fallacy nor issue–regardless of any supposed qualms had with the data itself–with reflecting upon 2017 matters with contemporary data for the purpose of discussion, especially as a response to someone else as was the case here.
Spoiler
Now ‘other’s ignorance’ (your term) is somehow my fault 😂
If others do not have what it takes to read what is plainly written, that’s their issue not mine.
Your entire paragraph there applies to the people who brought up the 2017 data originally…yet you actively refuse to say anything about them, even though they tried to apply the elderly data to the present day and without placards too. That is intellectually dishonest.
All in all, I’m not sure why you keep bothering me with this…others’ problems aren’t my worries. If you have some valid criticisms to bring up with what I said, you can raise them right after you take the others to task for applying the 2017 data to 2025.
1 Like
pantsir intercepting every single NATO missile at 12.0 be like “let me introduce myself”
Intentions? Lmao, people are having trouble reading what’s plainly written…nevermind trying at clairvoyance!
Considering how the last 10 years have gone for TO, a 2035 release seems a bit rushed…maybe 2040, eh?
If I was going to write a book about TO, it have to be a tragic non-fiction (no Booker prize) discussing TO advocates’ lousy stewardship of the idea and how TO has floundered because of it.
If you want to preorder the book, send a DM.
Unable to argue with what I said, you resort to a mere GIF…unimpressive. When you have something serious to say, get back to me and we’ll talk. While you might oppose free speech and want others to be silenced, I’m open to discussion.
Spoiler
Define irony…this from the guy who said just playing the game is seal clubbing, hahaha
Any subsequent complaints from you about sealclubbing can now be safely dismissed
I appreciate the humor.
1 Like
And now toptier is a complete mess cause two nations (which are almost always paired together) have overpowered SPAA, whilst everyone else has either balanced or straight garbage options.
I wouldn’t generalise it like this. Yes 110% there is an imbalance in the gamemode, however I find myself playing Multirole in a lot of top tier- dropping 1 or 2 GBU-24s in congested areas, especially when my team are outnumbered. Or killing campers that’re almost unreachable to ground targets.
But yes, there is a CAS problem. Most CAS players don’t play it like I would because they do not need to. Why stay in the airspace any longer than you need to, when you can just drop your munitions and dip + rearm? Its brainless and dead easy.
1 Like
The drones are the most underutilised mechanic in the game. Every BR it is in faces SAM/Radar Gun AA, and it is absolutely defenceless to them. Ideally, we just get rid of or nerf “Airstrike” modifications, and replace it with another incentive.
Other than that, I don’t see how they’re overpowered.
They need to fix their hitboxes as well. And what does it have to do with the airstrike mod ?
And the intel they provide when used is very much overpowered.
Why did you bring him back?
1 Like
Womp womp, maybe don’t use 2017 stats to argue something happening in the now
Lmfao, I didn’t
I commentated 2017 realities by looking at 2017 data…which is how analysis is done. So far, the only issue we have found really is that many others here have poor reading comprehension and cannot understand my posts because they are too advanced for them to grasp…which is their issue, not mine. (All you have to do is read guys!)
Other people tried using the 2017 data to talk about 2025, not I…go pester them with complaints about such things. None of that is my concern.
2 Likes
You want to talk about misreading stuff? You’re the genius that couldn’t read basic statistics. Also, why are you talking about 2017 anyways, it’s irrelevant and you deserve scrutiny for it
1 Like
Despite a very thorough and detailed analysis, nobody yet has pointed out anything untoward with what I said.
I read and interpreted the statistics well…if you want to dispute that, give specifics.
Other people brought up 2017 and then it became a point of discussion…which is the function of a forum.
Other people thought 2017 was relevant enough to bring up, they posted about it and I responded. Any other questions?
2 Likes
I told you to read how many AIR vehicles died to GROUND vehicles, versus how many GROUND vehicles died to AIR vehicles. YOU ignored that and kept adding in air on air statistics for no reason than to defend how broken CAS is.
As I mentioned at the time, the limitations of data filtration prevent the level of analysis in the table given prevent a definitive look at what you’re angling at that. A more macro look (as I executed) is the only way to justly look into the results.
Based on your comments here, I’d surmise you still don’t understand how the data was analyzed…it wasn’t to “defend” CAS, it was to be honest about the results.
The figures you were looking at was all ground units killed (which could be anything) by aircraft versus all aircraft killed by ground units (which will mean aircraft killed mostly SPAAs). Few ground vehicles (even SPAAs, nevermind other types) are trying to target enemy aircraft, so of course the results are depressed and skewed…it’s like trying to compare the number of rifle kills a bear and a hunter chalk up.
If there was greater data filtration, an analysis into the finer details would be possible–though it still wouldn’t iron out such things as non-AA SPAA use–but without such filtration that is not possible.
2 Likes
Nope, read the damn statistics or shut up.
I have read the statistics and posted a detailed analysis which document and verify what I said. All of what I’ve said is backed up by documentation and understandable to qualified people.
If a person cannot understand what I wrote because it’s too advanced for them…well, “sorry” I guess. I have already put it in as simple terms as is practical.
2 Likes