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
Stop falling for his provocations dude
1 Like
Lmao…I simply told it like it is.
That’s not provocative…or is it?
Wrong. You didn’t. I told you to specifically read air on ground and read ground to air. You kept adding in air on air to say that SPAAs are equal to CAS, as if SPAAs are also secretly planes too.
He is baiting you
Nope…I never claimed SPAAs were equal to aircraft. On the contrary, I not only pointed out their differences (in SP costs) but emphasized the importance of considering the various vehicle types counted in the statistics and why it matters (I literally just did this a few minutes ago).
Because of the very limited filtration of the data, the kill data had to be parsed out by its totals (kills to all causes) or it would be skewed by its own limitations. Once again: most ground vehicles are not even trying to target aircraft (many lack practical means to do so), so it would be ridiculous to try counting them as though all ground vehicles do.
Not at all. I’m trying to have a serious discussion here and others’ poor grasp of the game and how analysis is done is preventing that. Worse, it seems many of the people here despise the very idea of anything but an echo chamber or groupthink…it’s tragic really.
With these sorts of issues, I can see how the same people end up outplayed and defeated…they’d easily get flummoxed by their opponents and surroundings.
1 Like
I have explained to you precisely why the angle you have mentioned was unusable (insufficient data filtration) many times…your chatter doesn’t change this.
I haven’t ignored the statistics, I have embraced and understood them. Others just haven’t or cannot.
2 Likes
Airstrike Mod reduces CAS SP when spotting*. I tried pushing it to the limit, and was able to spawn 4x Mavs Gripen w/ 122sp. When I died, I just respawned with 4x Mavs w/ 300sp. You can easily scout a ton of people on a map where there’s a common kill-zone and easily get 2 CAS for a heavily discounted price, without getting a single kill or even an objective capture.
*I believe it is when you get an assist from spotting (Intelligence)
Goes both ways, so who is it overpowered for? Every player is capable of destroying them, deploying them and scouting with them.
4 Likes
Exactly
Yea i know how the game works, i still don’t understands how this relates the drones we are talking about.
Funny, when you say the same about aircrafts, the CAS hater horde gets mad.
Yea, will take a while to grind it, but I’ll give it a shot once I do. I’d say it “keeps tankers safe” due to SAMs keeping the CAS busy towards them instead of tanks. Some get away with it, but its better than before at least. There was way more CAS killing tanks, now its a lot less thanks to the IRIS-T.
Warrior wasn’t even the one that brought up 2017 stats first to begin with…that i know for sure.
3 Likes