Pointless to talk with him, he’s just trolling and flagging what he can’t answer.
1 Like
Lmao…again with that tripe? Spare me…trying to help you understand the game better =/= trolling.
As for the rules…it seems highly doubtful you read those either…something to invest your time in!
Anyone who puts the time in to actually read and understand will see them as I have. It’s just how the data is and what it says–simple.
Lmao:
-
What I said is correct and there is no double standard (or ‘double standardarted’)
-
I said most aircraft are likely ascribed as going for ground units…but some of the tally included were likely clean air-to-air fighters engaging other aircraft and included because data filtration limits prevent them from being excluded
Hilariously, you complained just a little while ago that defending (clean) fighters which could theoretically (and admittedly plausibly) attack open topped GFs were not included (they were), which justified including such aircraft in this count (as I had–albeit because of the data filtration limits).
Without prompting, your own holdings on the matter validated my methodology…yet you didn’t even realize it lmao
Nope, just ‘fully sound’ logic…perhaps one day you’ll grasp all of this in full. You didn’t even realize you’d concurred with the results, lol
There you go again…trying to blame me for others’ issues. Others’ poor understanding of matters isn’t my fault. Blaming me for their issues is bogus and we all know it.
(Currently, the thread has 1848 posts and you are the most numerous poster with 177 posts…you’re ~10% of the thread by yourself. You have no place telling anyone about bloating here, lol)
I suppose you didn’t read the context of this…but what’s being discussed here are my comments, what I stated (backed by the data) and what I have discussed since. Your comment isn’t really relevant here, despite its flaws.
As was the case years ago: you still don’t understand this data set, how to analyze it or what it means…it still eludes you and you apparently don’t even know it. Rather than bloating the thread with that self-evident matter, just leave that stated and let it go (PM me and I’ll attempt to assist you again).
I’d rather you focus on War Thunder for Nintendo 64 than write up screeds like this…it’s a more useful application of your time, even though it looks like the 1990s.
Nope…I’ve just been trying to help you out with a fuller, more accurate grasp of matters. Being knowledgeable and informed isn’t trolling…nor is flagging rule violating content a problem (it’s what you’re supposed to do).
Back to what you said before…you’ve already conceded: you admitted you had no substantive counterargument to what I said (as was obvious by the petty name calling too). I have simply proven my point moreover since…as was the case years ago, my comments stand and will keep standing because they’ve been validated. I can smile about that because I know wise readers will read and understand them as I have.
One day you’ll understand and you’ll be better off for it.
They do say it’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. So the best case of action here is to just stop arguing with you because there will never be an end to this discussion otherwise
3 Likes
It’s hard to argue with what is said when it’s backed up by the facts.
Amusingly enough, Despair just complained that I hadn’t included clean fighters in my tally (untrue) and demanded I include them…after complaining that I had included clean fighters in my tally (true).
His gaffe there was an embarrassing tell that someone had replied without reading or understanding…and that seems sadly commonly on the forums these days. Informed, thoughtful posts seem to be just too advanced for many these days…just how it is I guess.
My advice to people trying to argue against fact is to not do it…arguing against fact will be a loss for you and an embarrassing loss at that. That’s why I only deal in fact, as I have and that’s why what I say is trusted.
You know, after playing the game for a long time, and then reading this thread, all that springs to mind is :
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
2 Likes
Biggest problem:
CAS is killing more tanks then any weapon in CA mode and TO mode supporters are facing CAS supporters who refuse to give up they favorite weapon in battle.
2 Likes
CAS mains just cannot live without inflicting unnecessary suffering onto tankers
2 Likes
Maybe above 9.X+ among the mess of imbalance that the high end of the perpetually features…but certainly not below that range. Guided weaponry was always going to be problematic because it reduced/removes the importance of individual players’ skill (which doesn’t bode well with the severe importance of module grinding also at that range).
The high tiers’ problems are their own…let’s not pretend generalizing that range’s problems to the whole game is accurate.
The whole topic of TO seems to be largely by the wayside now…I haven’t seen any threads on it recently. In retrospect, 2019 seemed to TO’s big year given Gaijin’s acknowledgement and offer at the time.
TO advocacy seems bascially extinct if public posts are taken as any indication…because complaining about CAS is not in itself TO advocacy.
To pursue TO, you have to press Gaijin to implement TO. That requires its own discussion wholly independent of things as-is. Furthermore, TO advocates should try selling the concept on its own merits–not relying on “I don’t like CAS!” line which has been tried by previous TO advocates for nearly a decade…and yielded nil results.
The trigger queue concept has been mentioned recently and raised many times over the past few years. Despite its practicality, TO advocates have said almost nothing on the trigger queue…or much of anything about TO.
As I’ve stated before, I’m open to seeing TO but TO advocates in years past and more recently seem wholly uninterested in doing anything pursue the idea. It seems like they’ve given up.
Okay, so tell us this.
1: How many AIR players are eliminating GROUND players?
2: How many GROUND players are eliminating AIR players?
The stats are right here:
Please read it off.
To begin with, that table depicts RB GFs. In RB GFs, all of the players use ground vehicles prior to any potential respawns in others or air vehicles. There’s really no such thing as an ‘air player’ in RB GFs…only tankers and tankers who (also) fly.
Without seeing a data on this historical data, offhand I recall it is probably from 2017…prior to helicopters’ existence, nevermind their proliferation and that of highly accurate guided weaponry.
According to the table:
- 6,219 ground units were logged as destroyed by aircraft
- 7,351 aircraft were destroyed by enemy fire (ground + aircraft)
Due to data filtration limits (lack of specificity), we cannot see exactly what types of vehicles killed GFs/AFs. It is reasonable to assume most of the aircraft kills by ground units are attributable to SPAAs. At the same time, there is really no way to know what the composition of the types of ground units killed by aircraft might have been.
Thus, the best way to determine overall results is by looking at the death data combined, as I have presented previously. While this has its own limitations (primarily what fraction of the aircraft involved had no engagement with tanks), it is the best avenue for analysis with the data as it is given.
More aircraft were lost in these battles to all causes than tanks lost to aircraft…and aircraft cost much more SP too. Beyond that, the number of tanks lost to aircraft was about 10x lower than the number of tanks lost to other tanks. Overall, the results of aircraft didn’t measure well against their considerably higher costs (especially as they lack capture point influence).
As the possibly willful nature of many ‘accidental/unknown’ deaths cannot be determined and the same readings on tanks are being not counted, those can be excluded from each to maintain consistency.
All of this taken together casts tremendous doubt upon CAS hype (certainly of that time)…especially given that similar results exist today below 9.X. If we had an analogous table today, I suspect it’d generate very similar readings.
I didn’t ask, read the table.
How many GROUND PLAYERS from GROUND VEHICLES defeated AIR PLAYERS that are in AIR VEHICLES.
2 Likes
Pointless man, he’s trolling enjoyer. He understands everything very well. (I don’t believe he is that dumb).
Before you flag this warrior: I’m not saying “you are dumb” i said “i don’t believe you are dumb”. It’s different things, at least for normal people.
Update: And still you flagged this comment warrior
2 Likes
He’s still going to report you
Of course he will
Once again…there are no strictly ‘air players’ in RB GFs. Everyone used GFs at some point, including the tankers who fly.
As for the results, they were handled in the manner they were for the reasons I explained. The data is not specific enough to do it accurately in any other way.
Nope…there’s no trolling in understanding how to comprehend and extrapolate the data.
When you want a sober, serious look at the effectiveness of aircraft, you look at what they did and how much it cost. This means counting all means of loss to enemy fire, not just one subset with insufficient data filtration.
Incorrect. I handle discussions by presenting arguments and facts. I don’t need to resort to false flagging as some others regrettably do. I win the arguments by dealing in the truth, as I have.
It’s disappointing that you don’t see that…sensible people reading my posts understand what I have to say and I have been thanked many times for putting forward informed and insightful analyses. Those are rarer on the forums than they used to be.
1 Like
Answer the question. How many planes are taken out by tanks versus how many tanks are taken out by planes.
1 Like
Ohh my god man 🤣🤣
Okay I’ll try 1 more time:
Effectiveness of aircraft right?
Okay air got 6.2k ground kills
ground and air together got 7.2k air kills
air to air was 3.4k kills
Ground killed 3.9k air
You took air to air 3.4k + 3.9k ground killed air, i got it, but talking about air effectiveness 6.2 ground kills, why you don’t add to this air to air 3.4k kills???
Air killed 6.2k ground target and + 3.4k air target = 9.6k. If your logic is right, why you ignoring air to air kills??
Air to air losses is air effectiveness too right, so why not add??
2 Likes
If you are making this kind of “analysis” i understand why compliments are rare 😅
3 Likes
He was (or still is) one of those “Pointdexter” kids.