They want to not have planes in a game mode, any solution that don’t take the planes away isn’t going to solve that.
Why would they need to discuss a solution that keeps the thing they want taken away? It doesn’t make any sense.
-“I don’t want [thing] in [place]”
-“You can close your eyes, put a blanket over it or paint it blue”
-“That doesn’t take [thing] away from [place], the [thing] is still there”.
See what i mean?
That’s not true.
They’re having issues with planes, and they think they need to have tank only mode, but there are MANY MANY options, none of which they want because they’re all wound up on the fact of demanding that they be removed.
Because it’s the other side of the argument.
Doesn’t mean it’s right, or needed. There are other options.
We could move the spawns for planes back, make the SP cost more, put AI AAA around the battlefield, make SPAA cheaper to spawn, with scouting ability, even add other objectives for the planes to go after.
So many options, yet they’ll tell you that ONLY removeing the planes will suffice and decry any other option as not being valid because they don’t want to try anything else other than their demand.
You’re falling into the trap of aligning with him and making his angles ‘fine’. The gatekeeping and ignoring of the suggestions, isn’t discussion…
Made CAS planes disappear, only 1 got away with bombing 1 tank. Rest didn’t get the chance to drop or strafe with full loadout. Unfortunately players couldn’t play tanks anyways as they kept rushing in without paying attention and lost the match.
Vehicle: Chinese PLZ83 SPH with HE-VT rounds/17 second reload.
Almost CAS free match.
Nice use of the backup (If you did)… Even a nuke with the IS lol.
having a TO mode doesn’t remove the GRB mode. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
How about this: What is the option that makes it so that a player NEVER has to face a plane in any ground match they play and never get killed by a plane in a tank?
Which is arguing to keep the thing they want removed, of course they aren’t going to listen to that.
There is no right or wrong, its a subjective “want”.
That makes it so that a player never ever faces planes in a ground mode?
There are still planes in the match, that will at some point destroy the tank they are currently in. in minimises the risk of that occurring, it doesn’t take it away.
Exactly. If you want to eat food, no matter how hard i try i wont satisfy that want for you by letting you smell the food.
Nope not at all, i’m discussing this from purely a state of “your suggestion doesn’t make sense in regards to their wants”.
Additionally i don’t see the harm in adding a TO mode for those that want it.
True, but if someone wants a TO mode then what is the point of arguing for keeping the planes with that individual? I fully see the point of doing it in relation to the thread as a whole and the goal of mitigating the overall perceived issue of CAS. But not arguing against specific individuals that specifically voice a want for a TO mode.
I’m sorry, but that’s what sharing opposing opinions entails, and as I said, you’re leaning to accept his roun d and round avoidance of actual discussion.
If the thread isn’t just about what they want, then why is it no-one else can talk about what they think is better?
This defeats the purpose of the forum.
I think we need the superiors in here as I was reporting the round and round dictation that was coming from ULQ because he’s the one who won’t accept others angles, and leads to groups attacking me because they think he’s the bees knees.
Not in the slightest. I have not stated as such nor implied it.
Never said that, i said:
“what is the point of arguing for keeping the planes with that individual?”
Which he is absolutely free to do as long as he doesn’t break any rules. Same as you. And me. People are allowed to have set opinions that they wont change no matter how well you argue for/against a thing (again, as long as they don’t break any rules, if they do your are very free to flag it for moderation and the Forum Moderators will deal with it).
The issue is I do, because what I do in this game is before discussing something I try it and see how It really is.
I understand the point of people who like how things are, of people who just want to play tanks and people who don’t really care.
Because of that and my experience in this game I know that no matter what nerf/buff is presented, one side of the argument will always be unhappy with the outcome. The best solution is just allowing players who just want to play tanks do it in their own mode while with that being able to really make combined mode, combined and improve it.
No, you are by trying to contest my statements, lending him credence. Hence him liking all your posts right now…
It’s part of discussion, and actual engagement. He gatekeeps ANY engagement that doesn’t favour them, more often anything from me is stomped on and spam replied to make an issue.
If they’re accusing me of spamming like they have in the past, then it’s about time they were pulled up on the same thing.
If they can’t actually discuss anything civilly, without trying to mock, sidetrack or merely whataboutism to avoid discussion, whilst saying they totally discuss everything, but avoid coming to discuss anything other than their favorite want, then where does that stop?
I’ve been statshamed, and attacked by so many people in the past 24 hours that it’s highlights the true issue…
I can’t comment on the forum without people being upset to the point where they dogpile and berate me to try and silence me.
I’m not contesting your statements, i’m contesting the context in which you are making them.
I don’t follow here, in this very niche context you’re suggesting a half solution as an alternative to a full solution. I don’t personally see how that further discussions with that argument (TO mode) in particular.
If you have an issue with an individual then don’t engage with them and/or send a private message to a Forum Moderator about them if you feel it necessary.
See above.
It’s because you try to discuss about irrelevant things. Players which don’t want planes, meaning they want TO, don’t want to discuss about any air-ground interaction.
So if you want to have civill discussion about TO you need to forget about current GRB because in TO world it doesn’t exist.
You still don’t get it. There is nothing to discuss if players want TO.
From the prompt ‘Explain how discussion works to enrich the topic’
Discussion enriches a topic by bringing in multiple perspectives, which deepens understanding and often uncovers insights that a single viewpoint might miss. Here’s how it works step by step:
Participants share their opinions, facts, or experiences about a topic.
For example: In a discussion about climate change, one person may bring up scientific data, while another mentions local farming impacts.
Others may ask for clarification, challenge assumptions, or probe deeper. This refines the topic.
“What do you mean by ‘sustainable practices’? Can you give an example?”
Participants don’t just present ideas — they build on what others say, adding layers of meaning or evidence.
“Yes, and to add to that, New Zealand recently implemented a similar policy with measurable results.”
Conflicting opinions can broaden the discussion by highlighting gaps, contradictions, or overlooked issues.
“I disagree — subsidies may help farmers short term, but they delay real adaptation.”
Through this process, people often rethink their own views, leading to a more balanced, complex grasp of the issue.
“I hadn’t considered the economic side — that changes how I see the policy.”
Would you like this framed for a specific context like school debates, team meetings, or online forums?
The true fact of the matter is that many see the forums as a debate scenario compared to a discussion forum, and that they ‘win’ when they get someone to submit, or give up… That’s the problem with this group.
Left alone they group up and goad each other, then when someone makes a wrong statement they all come out to support each other blindly.
I’m not talking about the arguments that are discussing the matter at hand, i was talking about this:
No, no i’m not. I’m advocating for not spiraling a discussion even more out of control and risk even more breaking of rules. If someone break the rules then there is absolutely no need to engage with it openly as that only risks even more rules being broken from all sides.
Well in this case you’re not discussing the TO mode they brought up. So it isn’t really a discussion but an opposition as you are talking about different things.
I think herein lies the issue, if it’s an opposition it isn’t a discussion and you can’t expect to experience the things that comes with a discussion.
Its not ignorance its just difference in topics. You are discussing about something which is irrelevant for TO topic discussion.
You are laying down arguments and trying to prove to players that air-ground interaction is OK, while players that want TO don’t care about that because in TO there are no air assets.
I would say that it is more about them wanting to use tanks rather that SPAA, so any advice that doesn’t talk about what they can do in tanks is not what they care about
In this case they’re discussing TO mode when it wasn’t even being brought up…
The thread wasn’t about TO mode, they made it about TO mode becasuse they talk about TO mode so much that everyone is all about that TO mode and fawning over the slight possibility that they can say that a majority of the community like it because they have so many posts on a thread…
It’s a lost cause if we’re going to look for discussion with this group.
No, that’s part of discussion.
Literally the first three answers in this topic, one of which is you.
But not mutually exclusive to. If the only thing that is done is opposition then there is no discussion.
But you are disscussing about something others don’t. You are discussing about air-ground interaction while other discuissing about wanting ground-groung interaction with no air present.
There are no connecting point for those two topics because one exculdes other. TO excludes GRB because there are no air assets in TO.
You are not seeing issue with CAS (which is also fine), but others do (which is fine). Their solution is TO. So you trying to discuss that you have no issue with CAS with players that want TO makes no sense to them and you can see the reaction.
